By Jamey Dunn
The Illinois Supreme court issued a ruling Thursday on state employee health care that bodes ill for supporters of the recently passed cuts to public employee retirement benefits.
The court ruled that health care benefits for retirees fall under the pension protection clause—the very sentence of the state’s Constitution that many supporters of pension reform had hoped the justices would be willing to overlook. The pension clause states: “Membership in any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government or school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.”
The ruling indicates that the justices are inclined to side with public employees and retirees. In the 6-1 opinion, Justice Charles Freeman wrote: “Under settled Illinois law, where there is any question as to legislative intent and the clarity of the language of a pension statute, it must be liberally construed in favor of the rights of the pensioner.” Justice Anne Burke wrote the dissenting opinion. In it, she did not question the protection of the pension clause, but she argued that retiree health care benefits did not fall under that protection.
Some lawmakers seem to see the ruling as writing on the wall for the pension reform law, which is still working its way through the legal system. “Today, the Illinois Supreme Court made it very clear that the Pension Clause means what it says,” Senate President John Cullerton said in a prepared statement. “The court cannot rewrite the Pension Clause to include restrictions and limitations that the drafters did not express and the citizens of Illinois did not approve. The clause was aimed at protecting the right of public employees and retirees to receive their promised benefits and insulate those benefits from diminishment or impairment by the General Assembly.”
Cullerton added: “If the court’s decision is predictive, the challenge of reforming our pension systems will remain. As I have said from the beginning, I am committed to identifying solutions that adhere to the plain language of the constitution.”
Kent Redfield, an emeritus professor at the University of Illinois Springfield, said that while the ruling pertains to a different case, the language used is clear. “You could find some way to parse some of it, but it’s really, really difficult. There’s no logical way to get to upholding Senate Bill 1 (the pension reform legislation) based on the clear content of this ruling and the way they’ve construed the pensions clause.”
Others disagree that the ruling is a harbinger of the pension law’s death. Rep. Elaine Nekritz, who was key player in getting SB 1 passed, said that the justifications the law makes for reducing benefits were not part of the retiree health care case. She said that the court has yet to consider those points. The law lays out the dire fiscal situation that the state is in and claims that state elected officials need special powers to curtail the estimated $100 billion unfunded liability and save the state from a budget disaster. However, one line in today’s decision seems to blow a hole in that argument. “In light of the constitutional debates, we have concluded that the [pension] provision was aimed at protecting the right to receive the promised retirement benefits, not the adequacy of the funding to pay for them.”
Supporters also claim that a reduction in the amount that employee would pay into the system represents a consideration they are being given for a change to the contract that is their membership in a pensions system.
Nekritz said that the ruling is clear that benefits are protected, but she says it is unclear if that protection is absolute. “Does it really mean that we can do nothing, or are there some things that we can do based on the legal arguments that we make under Senate Bill 1?”
Those arguments aside, if the Illinois Supreme Court rejects the new pension law, what options do legislators have?
Cullerton had proposed offering employees a choice between receiving subsidized health care coverage or keeping their current pensions benefits. If they had chosen health care, they would have seen a reduction in their retirement income including a cut to the expensive compounded interest cost of living adjustments (COLAs) retirees currently receive. Cullerton said that this scheme could potentially fulfill a legal standard of giving employees consideration for a reduction in benefits. The Senate approved the plan, but it was never called for a vote in the House.
However, that plan was based on the idea that health benefits were not protected by the Constitution—a concept that runs counter to today’s ruling. “The concept of consideration is still viable. The court has not rejected it or defined what the limits are. It’s just hard to see what you can give up in exchange,” Redfield said. “It’s hard to see what other major carrot you can offer to people in terms of giving up their COLA.”
Skokie Democratic Rep. Lou Lang introduced legislation that would extend the current income tax rates, which are due to start rolling back on January 1, to pay down the unfunded liability.
But Lang’s plan also calls for larger contributions from employees and an increase in the retirement age. Both of these provisions could be seen as a reduction in benefits by the court. Much of the revenue from the temporary income tax increase has gone toward making the required annual pension payment after lawmakers voted to skip payments and short payments for several years in the past.
There have also been proposals to change the pension payment schedule to even out the cost of the annual payment. The state is currently on a system that resulted in large balloon payments, much like a subprime mortgage. Some such plans also call for funding the system at 80 percent as opposed to 95 percent or 100 percent. Redfield said that a proposal that changes the payment structures would need to be combined with changes to the state’s revenue structure, such as expanding the sales tax base to some services, budget cuts or both. “As a stand alone, then it looks like an excuse to keep doing what we’re doing,” he said.
Republican candidate for governor Bruce Rauner has advocated for moving employees’ future benefits to a system that looks more like a 401-K. That plan would go even further than SB1, so it is unlikely that it would be upheld if SB 1 were rejected. But it is possible that the court’s ruling might strengthen his case for offering a defined contribution plan to newly-hired employees. “It may embolden Rauner to say well we’ve got to get everybody going forward into a defined contribution [plan],” Redfield said. However, such a proposal would have no impact on the unfunded liability for current employee and retiree benefits. It also means the state would likely have to start contributing to Social Security benefits for positions that do not currently offer them.
Meanwhile Gov. Pat Quinn is emphatically sticking by his opinion that SB 1 is constitutional. “We believe the pension reform law is constitutional. This landmark law was urgently needed to resolve the state’s $100 billion pension crisis. It was also urgently needed to ensure that teachers, university employees and state workers who have faithfully contributed to the pension system have retirement security,” said a written statement from his office. “We’re confident the courts will uphold this critical law that stabilizes the state’s pension funds while squarely addressing the most pressing fiscal crisis of our time by eliminating the state's unfunded pension debt.”
Redfield said that there will likely be many suggestions for a Plan B on pension reform in the coming months. “I think people will be floating lots of ideas that probably aren’t feasible and really won’t address the short-term problems—between now and November,” he said. “There’s nothing politically to be gained by standing up and saying ‘you know, we really, really screwed up, and we have no options but to raise your taxes.’”
But he said that new revenues and cuts to state services to cover the cost of the pension systems might be the only real option available to address the problem if the court rejects SB 1. If that happens, the state will almost certainly face another credit downgrade if it fails to act to address the liability. The current budget is based on $650 million in borrowing that has to be paid back. In Fiscal Year 2016, the tax rate will be lower for the entire fiscal year instead of just half of it. FY16 could turn out to be one doozy of a budget for lawmakers and whomever is the governor to sort out. “You want to be around for a historic session for the General Assembly? I think everybody has a front row seat,” Redfield says.
Showing posts sorted by date for query pension borrowing. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query pension borrowing. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Thursday, July 03, 2014
Friday, May 30, 2014
Budget postpones tax debate until after election
By Jamey Dunn
The Senate approved the budget bills passed by the House earlier this week, essentially delaying the debate over a tax increase or deep cuts until after the November election.
This session, lawmakers had the challenge of crafting a budget with about $2 billion less revenue because the temporary income tax increase will begin to step down halfway through next fiscal year. The only options seemed to be deep cuts, new revenue or some combination of the two. Democrats eventually presented a third option, which relies on borrowing from special funds and increasing the state’s backlog of overdue bills
Chicago Democratic Sen. Heather Steans, who sponsored some of the budget bills in the Senate, said that the state could make it through the entire fiscal year on the spending approved today. “This budget is a full-year budget that can be executed for a full year without requiring any sort of a revenue vote. No tax increase is required for this budget.” But she said that if lawmakers do not approve any new revenues before the end of Fiscal Year 2015, many programs, such as in-home care for the elderly, would have to be cut. “We are going to have a huge issue that we cannot contend with without either mass cuts or revenue.” Steans said that there are about $700 million in new projected budget pressures that “are not probably totally funded” under the plan.
Republicans accused Democrats of setting the state up for a budget emergency, so they can push through an extension of the tax increase after the election. “This is an irresponsible budget seeking to create a crisis because you failed at convincing the people this year that there’s a sufficient crisis to require a tax increase. So now, you’re taking another stab at creating a crisis by making this huge cliff,” said Sen. Matt Murphy, a Palatine Republican.
Democrats say that they picked the least harmful option that was politically possible. “This maintenance budget allows us to provide level funding for key priorities and services. The effect of the budget is to avert doomsday cuts by deferrals, borrowing and increasing our backlog of bills,” Senate President John Cullerton said in a prepared statement. “Admittedly, this budget reverses some of the progress that we have made in recent years. Since we passed the income tax increase in 2011, we have paid down $3.6 billion in old bills and fully funded our ballooning pension payments. We have paid off $8 billion in pension debt. We have saved billions with responsible budget cuts and that demonstrated that we can be good stewards of taxpayer dollars.”
They FY 15 budget relies on $650 million in borrowing from state funds outside of the general operating budget. It would flat fund most areas of the budget with a slight increase in K-12 education. It would give larger agencies some lump sum appropriations so that they can have the flexibility to try to patch any holes that might spring up. The budget bills:
Steans and Park Ridge Democratic Sen. Dan Kotowski, who also sponsored budget bills, would not say if they intended to revisit the income tax rates after November. But they did say that they believe more revenue is needed. However, on the topic of the tax rates, Cullerton did not mince words. “In order to return to [the state’s] path of fiscal progress, we will have to bring revenues in line with our growing liabilities. While a vote on our tax rates has been deferred, rising costs and pressures will force the issue at a later date.” Cullerton has said that he has the votes in the Senate to keep the current income tax rates of 5 percent for individuals and 7 percent for corporations. But House Speaker Madigan said that he was a long way off from being able to pass an extension of the rates in the House. If lawmakers do not opt to extend the current rates, they will step down to 3.75 percent for individuals and 5.25 percent for corporations in January.
Republicans took issue with giving Quinn the power to sweep funds in an election year. They also cried foul over areas of spending in the budget, such as money going toward a summer jobs program to prevent violence. The governor has recently come under fire for the Neighborhood Recovery Initiative (NRI). The program was funded primarily from discretionary funding that Quinn could access. NRI was the subject of a scathing audit that found that the program did not use a competitive bidding process to select the providers and dole out grants but instead relied on recommendations from Chicago aldermen. Documentation from providers implementing NRI was seriously lacking and at least $2 million was never accounted for. Contracts for NRI were agreed upon just before the 2010 election and Republicans have accused Quinn of using the program as a “political slush fund.”
Democrats argued that the problems in the program have been cleaned up and that violence prevention continues to be an important priority. They criticized Republicans for not presenting their own detailed plan for coping with the loss of revenue in FY 15. “There’s no place to really pretend in this budget. It is what it is. It’s very straight forward it’s very clear,” said Kotowski of the plan. “It’s clear where the pressures exist. It’s clear the actions that we’re taking to live within the means already provided by taxpayers.”
In his traditional end-of-session floor speech, House Speaker Michael Madigan noted that lawmakers have been faced with many tough issues in recent years. “This has been a difficult session, a very difficult session. Over the last few years, nothing seems to be simple; nothing seems to be easy. It’s just one difficult complicated issue after another.”
The legislature is not scheduled to return for fall veto session until November 19th.
Roads and bridges capital bill
The Senate sent a “mini” capital bill with road and bridge constructions projects to Quinn’s desk. House Bill 3794 calls for $1.1 billion in construction spending, $1 billion of which would go to road and bridge projects included in IDOT’s 5-year plan. The remaining $100 million would go to local street repair projects.
The bill does not list projects because they would be determined by IDOT. The department would prioritize projects that are ready to go in the summer construction season. The money for construction would come from funding sources approved as part of the 1999 Illinois First capital program. Borrowing for the plan has been paid off, but the increased fees and taxes remain. The Senate approved the bill with no debate.
The Senate approved the budget bills passed by the House earlier this week, essentially delaying the debate over a tax increase or deep cuts until after the November election.
This session, lawmakers had the challenge of crafting a budget with about $2 billion less revenue because the temporary income tax increase will begin to step down halfway through next fiscal year. The only options seemed to be deep cuts, new revenue or some combination of the two. Democrats eventually presented a third option, which relies on borrowing from special funds and increasing the state’s backlog of overdue bills
Chicago Democratic Sen. Heather Steans, who sponsored some of the budget bills in the Senate, said that the state could make it through the entire fiscal year on the spending approved today. “This budget is a full-year budget that can be executed for a full year without requiring any sort of a revenue vote. No tax increase is required for this budget.” But she said that if lawmakers do not approve any new revenues before the end of Fiscal Year 2015, many programs, such as in-home care for the elderly, would have to be cut. “We are going to have a huge issue that we cannot contend with without either mass cuts or revenue.” Steans said that there are about $700 million in new projected budget pressures that “are not probably totally funded” under the plan.
Republicans accused Democrats of setting the state up for a budget emergency, so they can push through an extension of the tax increase after the election. “This is an irresponsible budget seeking to create a crisis because you failed at convincing the people this year that there’s a sufficient crisis to require a tax increase. So now, you’re taking another stab at creating a crisis by making this huge cliff,” said Sen. Matt Murphy, a Palatine Republican.
Democrats say that they picked the least harmful option that was politically possible. “This maintenance budget allows us to provide level funding for key priorities and services. The effect of the budget is to avert doomsday cuts by deferrals, borrowing and increasing our backlog of bills,” Senate President John Cullerton said in a prepared statement. “Admittedly, this budget reverses some of the progress that we have made in recent years. Since we passed the income tax increase in 2011, we have paid down $3.6 billion in old bills and fully funded our ballooning pension payments. We have paid off $8 billion in pension debt. We have saved billions with responsible budget cuts and that demonstrated that we can be good stewards of taxpayer dollars.”
They FY 15 budget relies on $650 million in borrowing from state funds outside of the general operating budget. It would flat fund most areas of the budget with a slight increase in K-12 education. It would give larger agencies some lump sum appropriations so that they can have the flexibility to try to patch any holes that might spring up. The budget bills:
- House Bill 6093 contains K-12 spending.
- HB6094 contains higher education spending.
- HB 6095 contains general operating services spending.
- HB 6096 contains human services spending and required spending, including pension payments.
- HB 6097 contains public safety spending
- HB 3793 contains capital projects, including school construction, and about half of the back pay owed to state workers.
- Senate Bill 220 contains budget implementation provisions
- SB 274 contains the authority for inter-fund borrowing and lawmaker’s pay. A mechanism in the bill would keep Gov. Pat Quinn from being able to cut off legislative pay, a move he made to try and push lawmakers to act on pension reform last summer. The bill would also put a freeze on legislative pay increases.
Steans and Park Ridge Democratic Sen. Dan Kotowski, who also sponsored budget bills, would not say if they intended to revisit the income tax rates after November. But they did say that they believe more revenue is needed. However, on the topic of the tax rates, Cullerton did not mince words. “In order to return to [the state’s] path of fiscal progress, we will have to bring revenues in line with our growing liabilities. While a vote on our tax rates has been deferred, rising costs and pressures will force the issue at a later date.” Cullerton has said that he has the votes in the Senate to keep the current income tax rates of 5 percent for individuals and 7 percent for corporations. But House Speaker Madigan said that he was a long way off from being able to pass an extension of the rates in the House. If lawmakers do not opt to extend the current rates, they will step down to 3.75 percent for individuals and 5.25 percent for corporations in January.
Republicans took issue with giving Quinn the power to sweep funds in an election year. They also cried foul over areas of spending in the budget, such as money going toward a summer jobs program to prevent violence. The governor has recently come under fire for the Neighborhood Recovery Initiative (NRI). The program was funded primarily from discretionary funding that Quinn could access. NRI was the subject of a scathing audit that found that the program did not use a competitive bidding process to select the providers and dole out grants but instead relied on recommendations from Chicago aldermen. Documentation from providers implementing NRI was seriously lacking and at least $2 million was never accounted for. Contracts for NRI were agreed upon just before the 2010 election and Republicans have accused Quinn of using the program as a “political slush fund.”
Democrats argued that the problems in the program have been cleaned up and that violence prevention continues to be an important priority. They criticized Republicans for not presenting their own detailed plan for coping with the loss of revenue in FY 15. “There’s no place to really pretend in this budget. It is what it is. It’s very straight forward it’s very clear,” said Kotowski of the plan. “It’s clear where the pressures exist. It’s clear the actions that we’re taking to live within the means already provided by taxpayers.”
In his traditional end-of-session floor speech, House Speaker Michael Madigan noted that lawmakers have been faced with many tough issues in recent years. “This has been a difficult session, a very difficult session. Over the last few years, nothing seems to be simple; nothing seems to be easy. It’s just one difficult complicated issue after another.”
The legislature is not scheduled to return for fall veto session until November 19th.
Roads and bridges capital bill
The Senate sent a “mini” capital bill with road and bridge constructions projects to Quinn’s desk. House Bill 3794 calls for $1.1 billion in construction spending, $1 billion of which would go to road and bridge projects included in IDOT’s 5-year plan. The remaining $100 million would go to local street repair projects.
The bill does not list projects because they would be determined by IDOT. The department would prioritize projects that are ready to go in the summer construction season. The money for construction would come from funding sources approved as part of the 1999 Illinois First capital program. Borrowing for the plan has been paid off, but the increased fees and taxes remain. The Senate approved the bill with no debate.
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Little change for state's bond ratings so far
By Jamey Dunn
The major bond rating agencies are having mixed reactions to changes to Illinois' public employee pension systems that were approved and signed into law last week.
Standard & Poor’s rating services upgraded its outlook on the state’s borrowing from “negative” to “developing.” However, the state retains its A- rating from the agency. According to S&P, the new outlook means that the agency could raise or lower the state’s rating in the next two years. “The change reflects the consensus reached on pension reform, which we believe could contribute to a sustainable path to fiscal stability,” S&P credit analyst Robin Prunty said in a prepared statement. “Although we view the consensus achieved by Illinois on this difficult issue as positive from a credit standpoint, the developing outlook reflects the implementation risk — legal and budgetary — associated with various provisions of the pension reform, as well as the overall structural budget challenges facing the state.” The new outlook comes as Illinois is planning to sell $350 million in general obligation bonds later this week.
Gov. Pat Quinn highlighted the change as a positive byproduct of the pension cuts that lawmakers approved and he signed into law. “I am pleased the ratings agencies are recognizing that Illinois is moving in the right direction,” Gov. Quinn said in a prepared statement. “As I’ve always made clear, one of the many reasons to resolve Illinois’ pension crisis was the negative impact it had on our bond rating, which cost taxpayers more money to finance critical repairs and improvements to roads, bridges and schools. This improved outlook will be the first of many positive developments towards a revitalized and stronger Illinois.”
But a change in outlook does not constitute much positive forward motion for the state, especially given how much of a beating Illinois’ credit has taken in recent years. The two other major rating agencies, Moody’s and Fitch Ratings, both issued positive statements about the new law. But neither has opted to adjust the state’s rating or outlook. Both said they would analyze the law to determine the extent of its fiscal impact. Supporters say it will save $160 billion and fully fund the pension systems by 2043.
Public employee unions are expected to bring a lawsuit against the state because they say the pension cuts violate the state’s Constitution, which contains an explicit protection for retirement benefits. “[Senate Bill 1] won’t save a penny. The bill is unconstitutional, so it’s savings are an illusion. It’s only going to cost the state time and money and kick the can down the road all over again,” said a statement from the We Are One Union coalition. Moody’s said in a brief analysis issued after the bill passed last week, that it would be able to factor the changes in the new law into the state’s credit rating if and when they are upheld by the courts.
All three rating agencies acknowledge that the state is facing other budget issues besides pension reform, including the loss of billions of dollars of revenue when the temporary income tax increase sunsets. The tax rate begins stepping down in 2015. Fitch’s said that the state must address some of its budget challenges to hang on to its current rating, which is the lowest in the country. “In addition to action on pensions, maintenance of the rating will require timely action on a more permanent budget solution to the structural mismatch between spending and revenues in advance of the expiration of temporary tax increases.”
The major bond rating agencies are having mixed reactions to changes to Illinois' public employee pension systems that were approved and signed into law last week.
Standard & Poor’s rating services upgraded its outlook on the state’s borrowing from “negative” to “developing.” However, the state retains its A- rating from the agency. According to S&P, the new outlook means that the agency could raise or lower the state’s rating in the next two years. “The change reflects the consensus reached on pension reform, which we believe could contribute to a sustainable path to fiscal stability,” S&P credit analyst Robin Prunty said in a prepared statement. “Although we view the consensus achieved by Illinois on this difficult issue as positive from a credit standpoint, the developing outlook reflects the implementation risk — legal and budgetary — associated with various provisions of the pension reform, as well as the overall structural budget challenges facing the state.” The new outlook comes as Illinois is planning to sell $350 million in general obligation bonds later this week.
Gov. Pat Quinn highlighted the change as a positive byproduct of the pension cuts that lawmakers approved and he signed into law. “I am pleased the ratings agencies are recognizing that Illinois is moving in the right direction,” Gov. Quinn said in a prepared statement. “As I’ve always made clear, one of the many reasons to resolve Illinois’ pension crisis was the negative impact it had on our bond rating, which cost taxpayers more money to finance critical repairs and improvements to roads, bridges and schools. This improved outlook will be the first of many positive developments towards a revitalized and stronger Illinois.”
But a change in outlook does not constitute much positive forward motion for the state, especially given how much of a beating Illinois’ credit has taken in recent years. The two other major rating agencies, Moody’s and Fitch Ratings, both issued positive statements about the new law. But neither has opted to adjust the state’s rating or outlook. Both said they would analyze the law to determine the extent of its fiscal impact. Supporters say it will save $160 billion and fully fund the pension systems by 2043.
Public employee unions are expected to bring a lawsuit against the state because they say the pension cuts violate the state’s Constitution, which contains an explicit protection for retirement benefits. “[Senate Bill 1] won’t save a penny. The bill is unconstitutional, so it’s savings are an illusion. It’s only going to cost the state time and money and kick the can down the road all over again,” said a statement from the We Are One Union coalition. Moody’s said in a brief analysis issued after the bill passed last week, that it would be able to factor the changes in the new law into the state’s credit rating if and when they are upheld by the courts.
All three rating agencies acknowledge that the state is facing other budget issues besides pension reform, including the loss of billions of dollars of revenue when the temporary income tax increase sunsets. The tax rate begins stepping down in 2015. Fitch’s said that the state must address some of its budget challenges to hang on to its current rating, which is the lowest in the country. “In addition to action on pensions, maintenance of the rating will require timely action on a more permanent budget solution to the structural mismatch between spending and revenues in advance of the expiration of temporary tax increases.”
Tuesday, December 03, 2013
Legislators approve changes to state's public pension systems
By Jamey Dunn
After years of debate and several failed attempts, the Illinois General Assembly passed changes today to the state’s pension systems for public employees.
After holding simultaneous floor debates, the Illinois House and Senate voted within minutes of each other to approve a new version of Senate Bill 1. The plan is the product of a special conference committee on pensions and negotiations among legislative leaders. Gov. Pat Quinn said he plans to sign the bill, which he called a “bipartisan victory for the people of Illinois.” Quinn, who voluntarily stopped taking pay until the bill was passed, said that after he signs it, he will look into picking up his back checks. “Today, this day, will always go down in history as the day that the people of Illinois through their elected representatives and senators took action for the future. The people have won. We have all won.”
The proposal is projected to save $160 billion over 30 years and fully fund the pension systems, which are currently underfunded by an estimated $100 billion, by 2043. It would reduce annual cost of living adjustments (COLAs) for current and future retirees. The bill would apply differently to employees and retirees, depending on how long they worked and which retirement system they belong to. The current COLAs are 3 percent compounding interest. Under the new SB1, the COLA would be determined by 3 percent of pension benefits or 3 percent of the product of years served multiplied by $800 for state employees or $1,000 for teachers and university employees. The COLA would be based on whichever number result is smaller. The numbers used in the formula, $800 and $1,000, would increase along with the Consumer Price Index. Some annual COLAs would be deferred for current employees upon retirement. The number of years an employee must skip the COLA is contingent of years of service.
Employees younger than 46 also would have to retire later. For each year an employee is younger than 46, an additional four months would be tacked onto the time he or she would have to work to receive full benefits. The proposal would also cap pensionable salary at $109,971, but that number would increase annually based on inflation.
The bill would reduce the employee contribution toward retirement benefits by one percentage point and allow the systems to sue the state if it does not make its required payment. However, lawmakers could vote to change the payment schedule and reduce the annual payment. The state would contribute 10 percent of the savings from the plan toward the unfunded liability starting in 2015. The state would also contribute an additional $1 billion after borrowing that was used to make pension payments in the past is paid off.
House Speaker Michael Madigan made his goals for pension changes clear during floor debate today. “We’re here today discussing the issue because of the cost, and what we want to do is get cost savings as a result of this bill.” Madigan said he did not call a union-backed proposal, Senate Bill 2404, for a floor vote in the House because it would not have produced enough savings. He said that the House had set the “high bar of achievement” when it passed an earlier version of SB 1 last spring. That proposal would have saved an estimated $163 billion. The plan failed to gain the needed votes to pass in the Senate. Madigan said that he was “severely criticized” for not allowing the SB 2404 to to be called in the House after it passed in the Senate. But he said today that he did not call it because he wanted to “shape the issue” and give people time to understand the difference in cost savings between the bills. He also wanted lawmakers “to understand that our goal is to achieve the most cost savings feasible as a result of the legislation.”
Madigan said that pensions had become “too rich” to be sustained, and that he and Republican leaders hoped to keep the savings from any new proposal near to those that would have been achieved by the previous SB 1. Madigan also said today that he believes COLAs, the biggest cost driver among the pension benefits, are not protected by the state’s Constitution. The speaker said that a smaller portion of the savings in the new version of SB 1 would be derived from benefit cuts. Under the old bill, almost two thirds of the savings were reductions, but under the new plan, the unfunded liability reduction would be split about half and half between cuts and additional funding.
Opponents argued that the issue is about more than the bottom line. “If this were only about picking the bill that saves the most money, we’d all pick the bill that saves the most money,” said Sen. Toi Hutchinson, an Olympia Fields Democrat. “It’s about taking people’s retirement benefits right when they need them the most, after they’ve worked hard and earned those benefits.”
Aurora Democratic Sen. Linda Holmes, the only member of the conference committee who did not support the bill, said that the plan was akin to theft. “I don’t know how there’s one person here with any understanding of business, with any understanding of contracts, who can sit there and say what we’re doing is right. This is wrong.” Homes and Hutchinson both said that the bill violates the state’s constitutional protection of pension benefits. That provision says: “Membership in any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government or school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.”
Hutchinson said of the constitutionality of SB 1: “I’m not a constitutional lawyer. I’m really not. But I can read, and it’s in the Constitution.”
Supporters of the bill say that the reduction in employee contributions and the funding guarantee offer a consideration in exchange for the benefits that would be reduced. The idea behind their argument is that under contract law, a benefit could be reduced if something else of value is offered as a consideration for the reduction. However many argue — including Senate President John Cullerton at one time — that employees would have to agree to the swap for it to pass muster. Cullerton’s SB 2404 would have offered employees choices between COLA reductions or state-subsidized health care in retirement.
Not all who voted in favor of the law today say they are certain that the bill is constitutional. However, they say that the crisis is too big to ignore. “The legislative process involves compromise. When it comes to pension reform, a compromise was found at the intersection of policy and political feasibility. The General Assembly stumbled at this intersection for years. Now, it’s time to move forward and allow the courts to rule on the constitutionality of our approach,” Cullerton said in a prepared statement.
Chicago Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul, who was chair of the conference committee, said that if the Illinois Supreme Court did strike down the bill, the justices would likely give some indication in their opinion of what steps they think lawmakers could take on pension changes. “We have the worst unfunded liability in the United States of America, and we can’t continue to be cemented into a stalemate,” he said. “We cannot continue to be the embarrassment of the nation. We must act to steer our ship in the right direction.”
Madigan said he thinks the courts will uphold the bill. “Something’s got to be done. Something’s got to be done. We can’t go on dedicating so much of our resources to this one sector of pensions,” he said. The changes will apply to four of the five state pension systems: teachers, university employees, legislators and state government employees. Judges' pensions will not be affected under SB 1.
Union officials say SB 1 goes too far and is unconstitutional. They maintain that SB 2404 was the best choice. “There’s no victory in a bill that will get tied up in court, no victory in harming the lives of teachers and firefighters and nurses to a far greater degree than is just and necessary,” said Dan Montgomery, president of the Illinois Federation of Teachers. “We feel it's blatantly unconstitutional, and so claiming it saves $160 billion is a disturbing illusion. It will save no money at all.” There is some debate about whether opponents will have to wait until the law goes into effect in June before they can file suit. But at least one union leader indicated today that a suit could come sooner than June. “We would have to wait until the governor signs it, and then we can file a suit at any time. And then we’ll do it when we’re ready and when it’s most appropriate,” Montgomery said.
Other opponents said that the state should completely scrap its defined benefits system and move employees to a 401(k)-type plan for future benefits. Advocates for such plans argue that only employee benefits earned to date are protected by the Constitution. Rep. Thomas Morrison, a Palatine Republican, said that because the state has the worst-funded pension system in the nation, lawmakers have go to “go big” on reforms to solve the problem.
Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno said she is aware of the human toll that cutting pensions would take. “We're very cognizant of the fact that this is not just a numbers issue, but it’s a people issue as well.” During negotiations, she pushed for a provision that would allow low-income retirees to keep their current COLAs until their pensions reached $30,000. But she said that that the changes must be made to address the state’s fiscal problems. She said that if the pension issue is addressed, other concerns such as the state’s overdue bills, will be easier to tackle. She also said that making the systems solvent should provide employees and retirees some piece of mind, even if they are upset that their pensions will be reduced. “They will be able to count on the benefits once we pass this bill,” she said on the Senate floor.
Several opponents on the Republican side argued only that lawmakers should slow down the process. They said there was not enough time for them to fully understand the more-than-300-page bill or for the public to grasp what was at stake. Republican gubernatorial candidate Sen. Kirk Dillard of Hinsdale was among them.
The proposal has the support of all four legislative leaders and Gov. Pat Quinn. Nonetheless. speculation that it might not pass was still floating around earlier today. (Those assessments may have been caution from supporters and wishful thinking from opponents.) Two other Republican candidates for governor, Illinois Treasurer Dan Rutherford and venture capitalist Bruce Rauner, both opposed the measure in the lead-up to the vote. Republican U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk also panned the bill, dismissing it as gimmicks that would not solve the problem.
Republican legislative leaders acknowledged that the political hubbub made their attempts to get votes for SB 1 more difficult. Radogno said she was glad that 10 members of her 18-member caucus voted in favor of the bill. “That’s more than half. I’m very pleased with it. It was a contentious vote,” Radogno said. “The caucus was a microcosm of the opposition that we heard outside. You had the folks that were very much from the union districts and were not going to be for the pension reform no matter what. And then you had people that were very ideological, saying that this isn’t good enough; we ought to just not do anything and let chaos reign and then we can come in and do something better.” New House Minority Leader Jim Durkin said that his vote count changed throughout the day. He said that the influence from people such as Rauner, as well as lobbying from union members, probably played a role. But he said that getting the vote done now was likely key to its passage. “I quite frankly believed that if we did not pass a bill today, that we would not see one next year because then it would get caught up in the governor’s election and all the drama that goes into it every four years.”
Madigan, who is known for delivering votes at crunch time, said it wasn’t easy. “Well, this was difficult because of the strength of the opposition and the intensity of the calls and contacts generated by organized labor among the Democrats. On the Republican side, their problem apparently was some of the gubernatorial candidates thinking about the campaign rather than the seriousness of the issue.”
Northbrook Democratic Rep. Elaine Nekritz, who has been working on the pension issue for more than two years, said that today’s vote might be the first in a series of bills to address underfunded pension systems. “I think that this will free up a lot of energy and capacity in the General Assembly to start focusing on the needs of the city [of Chicago] and they are significant and in may ways more immediate than the state’s need in terms of addressing the shortfalls in their pensions systems.”
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel came to Springfield in 2012 and appealed to lawmakers for changes to the city’s pension systems. Many other municipalities are also struggling with underfunded pension systems. “There are police and fire pension systems around this state that are funded in the 10 [percent] to 20[percent] to 25 percent range that are very much at risk of being insolvent. Our work on pensions is by no means done. But this [vote] will let a lot of air back in the room to start addressing the other systems,” Nekritz said. Cullerton agreed. “Pension reform isn’t done. I am committed to building on our momentum and providing relief for our local communities facing similar problems. Specifically, it is critical that we turn our focus to the financial crisis facing the Chicago Public Schools’ pension system. I look forward to working with all leaders on this critical issue.”
After years of debate and several failed attempts, the Illinois General Assembly passed changes today to the state’s pension systems for public employees.
After holding simultaneous floor debates, the Illinois House and Senate voted within minutes of each other to approve a new version of Senate Bill 1. The plan is the product of a special conference committee on pensions and negotiations among legislative leaders. Gov. Pat Quinn said he plans to sign the bill, which he called a “bipartisan victory for the people of Illinois.” Quinn, who voluntarily stopped taking pay until the bill was passed, said that after he signs it, he will look into picking up his back checks. “Today, this day, will always go down in history as the day that the people of Illinois through their elected representatives and senators took action for the future. The people have won. We have all won.”
The proposal is projected to save $160 billion over 30 years and fully fund the pension systems, which are currently underfunded by an estimated $100 billion, by 2043. It would reduce annual cost of living adjustments (COLAs) for current and future retirees. The bill would apply differently to employees and retirees, depending on how long they worked and which retirement system they belong to. The current COLAs are 3 percent compounding interest. Under the new SB1, the COLA would be determined by 3 percent of pension benefits or 3 percent of the product of years served multiplied by $800 for state employees or $1,000 for teachers and university employees. The COLA would be based on whichever number result is smaller. The numbers used in the formula, $800 and $1,000, would increase along with the Consumer Price Index. Some annual COLAs would be deferred for current employees upon retirement. The number of years an employee must skip the COLA is contingent of years of service.
Employees younger than 46 also would have to retire later. For each year an employee is younger than 46, an additional four months would be tacked onto the time he or she would have to work to receive full benefits. The proposal would also cap pensionable salary at $109,971, but that number would increase annually based on inflation.
The bill would reduce the employee contribution toward retirement benefits by one percentage point and allow the systems to sue the state if it does not make its required payment. However, lawmakers could vote to change the payment schedule and reduce the annual payment. The state would contribute 10 percent of the savings from the plan toward the unfunded liability starting in 2015. The state would also contribute an additional $1 billion after borrowing that was used to make pension payments in the past is paid off.
House Speaker Michael Madigan made his goals for pension changes clear during floor debate today. “We’re here today discussing the issue because of the cost, and what we want to do is get cost savings as a result of this bill.” Madigan said he did not call a union-backed proposal, Senate Bill 2404, for a floor vote in the House because it would not have produced enough savings. He said that the House had set the “high bar of achievement” when it passed an earlier version of SB 1 last spring. That proposal would have saved an estimated $163 billion. The plan failed to gain the needed votes to pass in the Senate. Madigan said that he was “severely criticized” for not allowing the SB 2404 to to be called in the House after it passed in the Senate. But he said today that he did not call it because he wanted to “shape the issue” and give people time to understand the difference in cost savings between the bills. He also wanted lawmakers “to understand that our goal is to achieve the most cost savings feasible as a result of the legislation.”
Madigan said that pensions had become “too rich” to be sustained, and that he and Republican leaders hoped to keep the savings from any new proposal near to those that would have been achieved by the previous SB 1. Madigan also said today that he believes COLAs, the biggest cost driver among the pension benefits, are not protected by the state’s Constitution. The speaker said that a smaller portion of the savings in the new version of SB 1 would be derived from benefit cuts. Under the old bill, almost two thirds of the savings were reductions, but under the new plan, the unfunded liability reduction would be split about half and half between cuts and additional funding.
Opponents argued that the issue is about more than the bottom line. “If this were only about picking the bill that saves the most money, we’d all pick the bill that saves the most money,” said Sen. Toi Hutchinson, an Olympia Fields Democrat. “It’s about taking people’s retirement benefits right when they need them the most, after they’ve worked hard and earned those benefits.”
Aurora Democratic Sen. Linda Holmes, the only member of the conference committee who did not support the bill, said that the plan was akin to theft. “I don’t know how there’s one person here with any understanding of business, with any understanding of contracts, who can sit there and say what we’re doing is right. This is wrong.” Homes and Hutchinson both said that the bill violates the state’s constitutional protection of pension benefits. That provision says: “Membership in any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government or school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.”
Hutchinson said of the constitutionality of SB 1: “I’m not a constitutional lawyer. I’m really not. But I can read, and it’s in the Constitution.”
Supporters of the bill say that the reduction in employee contributions and the funding guarantee offer a consideration in exchange for the benefits that would be reduced. The idea behind their argument is that under contract law, a benefit could be reduced if something else of value is offered as a consideration for the reduction. However many argue — including Senate President John Cullerton at one time — that employees would have to agree to the swap for it to pass muster. Cullerton’s SB 2404 would have offered employees choices between COLA reductions or state-subsidized health care in retirement.
Not all who voted in favor of the law today say they are certain that the bill is constitutional. However, they say that the crisis is too big to ignore. “The legislative process involves compromise. When it comes to pension reform, a compromise was found at the intersection of policy and political feasibility. The General Assembly stumbled at this intersection for years. Now, it’s time to move forward and allow the courts to rule on the constitutionality of our approach,” Cullerton said in a prepared statement.
Chicago Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul, who was chair of the conference committee, said that if the Illinois Supreme Court did strike down the bill, the justices would likely give some indication in their opinion of what steps they think lawmakers could take on pension changes. “We have the worst unfunded liability in the United States of America, and we can’t continue to be cemented into a stalemate,” he said. “We cannot continue to be the embarrassment of the nation. We must act to steer our ship in the right direction.”
Madigan said he thinks the courts will uphold the bill. “Something’s got to be done. Something’s got to be done. We can’t go on dedicating so much of our resources to this one sector of pensions,” he said. The changes will apply to four of the five state pension systems: teachers, university employees, legislators and state government employees. Judges' pensions will not be affected under SB 1.
Union officials say SB 1 goes too far and is unconstitutional. They maintain that SB 2404 was the best choice. “There’s no victory in a bill that will get tied up in court, no victory in harming the lives of teachers and firefighters and nurses to a far greater degree than is just and necessary,” said Dan Montgomery, president of the Illinois Federation of Teachers. “We feel it's blatantly unconstitutional, and so claiming it saves $160 billion is a disturbing illusion. It will save no money at all.” There is some debate about whether opponents will have to wait until the law goes into effect in June before they can file suit. But at least one union leader indicated today that a suit could come sooner than June. “We would have to wait until the governor signs it, and then we can file a suit at any time. And then we’ll do it when we’re ready and when it’s most appropriate,” Montgomery said.
Other opponents said that the state should completely scrap its defined benefits system and move employees to a 401(k)-type plan for future benefits. Advocates for such plans argue that only employee benefits earned to date are protected by the Constitution. Rep. Thomas Morrison, a Palatine Republican, said that because the state has the worst-funded pension system in the nation, lawmakers have go to “go big” on reforms to solve the problem.
Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno said she is aware of the human toll that cutting pensions would take. “We're very cognizant of the fact that this is not just a numbers issue, but it’s a people issue as well.” During negotiations, she pushed for a provision that would allow low-income retirees to keep their current COLAs until their pensions reached $30,000. But she said that that the changes must be made to address the state’s fiscal problems. She said that if the pension issue is addressed, other concerns such as the state’s overdue bills, will be easier to tackle. She also said that making the systems solvent should provide employees and retirees some piece of mind, even if they are upset that their pensions will be reduced. “They will be able to count on the benefits once we pass this bill,” she said on the Senate floor.
Several opponents on the Republican side argued only that lawmakers should slow down the process. They said there was not enough time for them to fully understand the more-than-300-page bill or for the public to grasp what was at stake. Republican gubernatorial candidate Sen. Kirk Dillard of Hinsdale was among them.
The proposal has the support of all four legislative leaders and Gov. Pat Quinn. Nonetheless. speculation that it might not pass was still floating around earlier today. (Those assessments may have been caution from supporters and wishful thinking from opponents.) Two other Republican candidates for governor, Illinois Treasurer Dan Rutherford and venture capitalist Bruce Rauner, both opposed the measure in the lead-up to the vote. Republican U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk also panned the bill, dismissing it as gimmicks that would not solve the problem.
Republican legislative leaders acknowledged that the political hubbub made their attempts to get votes for SB 1 more difficult. Radogno said she was glad that 10 members of her 18-member caucus voted in favor of the bill. “That’s more than half. I’m very pleased with it. It was a contentious vote,” Radogno said. “The caucus was a microcosm of the opposition that we heard outside. You had the folks that were very much from the union districts and were not going to be for the pension reform no matter what. And then you had people that were very ideological, saying that this isn’t good enough; we ought to just not do anything and let chaos reign and then we can come in and do something better.” New House Minority Leader Jim Durkin said that his vote count changed throughout the day. He said that the influence from people such as Rauner, as well as lobbying from union members, probably played a role. But he said that getting the vote done now was likely key to its passage. “I quite frankly believed that if we did not pass a bill today, that we would not see one next year because then it would get caught up in the governor’s election and all the drama that goes into it every four years.”
Madigan, who is known for delivering votes at crunch time, said it wasn’t easy. “Well, this was difficult because of the strength of the opposition and the intensity of the calls and contacts generated by organized labor among the Democrats. On the Republican side, their problem apparently was some of the gubernatorial candidates thinking about the campaign rather than the seriousness of the issue.”
Northbrook Democratic Rep. Elaine Nekritz, who has been working on the pension issue for more than two years, said that today’s vote might be the first in a series of bills to address underfunded pension systems. “I think that this will free up a lot of energy and capacity in the General Assembly to start focusing on the needs of the city [of Chicago] and they are significant and in may ways more immediate than the state’s need in terms of addressing the shortfalls in their pensions systems.”
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel came to Springfield in 2012 and appealed to lawmakers for changes to the city’s pension systems. Many other municipalities are also struggling with underfunded pension systems. “There are police and fire pension systems around this state that are funded in the 10 [percent] to 20[percent] to 25 percent range that are very much at risk of being insolvent. Our work on pensions is by no means done. But this [vote] will let a lot of air back in the room to start addressing the other systems,” Nekritz said. Cullerton agreed. “Pension reform isn’t done. I am committed to building on our momentum and providing relief for our local communities facing similar problems. Specifically, it is critical that we turn our focus to the financial crisis facing the Chicago Public Schools’ pension system. I look forward to working with all leaders on this critical issue.”
Tuesday, October 01, 2013
Insurance marketplace goes online despite federal shutdown
By Jamey Dunn
After the federal government shut down at midnight in a battle over Obamacare, the online health insurance marketplaces that are a cornerstone of the law rolled out across the country today.
Federal Government Shutdown
Some Republicans in Congress had been pushing to defund the Patient Protection and Affordable Care as a condition for their votes to approve a federal budget. Last night House Republicans approved a one-year delay in the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that all Americans have health insurance. The Senate rejected it, and the House refused to take up an extension of the federal budget previously approved by the Senate.
With no budget in place, all but what has been deemed “essential services” of the federal government have shut down. National parks and monuments are closed. Research labs have stopped their work. Many regulatory bodies will only maintain a bare bones staff. For instance, only 5 percent of the staff at the Environmental Protection Agency will work through the shutdown.
Social Security and federal entitlement programs, such as Medicare will continue to pay benefits. Mail service will also continue. So will services deemed necessary for safety or national security, such as the work done by the Federal Aviation Administration. However, most federal employees who report to work today will not be paid as long as there is no budget in place. Notably, members of Congress will continue to receive their checks, though some have vowed to forgo pay until the government is running again. The U.S. Constitution has a provision similar to the Illinois Constitution that prohibits any change in lawmakers’ pay during their terms. The 27th Amendment was intended to keep federal lawmakers from voting to increase their pay, but it will also keep their $174,000 annual salaries coming during the shutdown. Gov. Pat Quinn is currently trying to challenge that notion in Illinois after he vetoed the money for lawmaker’s salaries. Quinn says they should not be paid until the approve changes to the states troubled pension system. But a judge ruled last week that the move violated the state Constitution. Quinn is appealing to the Illinois Supreme Court.
Illinois officials say the federal shutdown would not halt state services in the short term. State employees who are paid with federal funds will face temporary layoffs as soon as tomorrow. The timing of the layoffs could vary across agencies because some may have enough cash on hand to keep employees working longer. According to Quinn’s office, the agencies that could see layoffs include the Departments of Labor, Veterans’ Affairs, Military Affairs, Illinois Emergency Management Agency, Office of Health Information Technology and the Department of Human Services’ Bureau of Disability Determination, which evaluates applicants for disability benefits. When the federal government last shut down in 1995, the state laid off 1,200 employees.
If the shutdown drags on, federally funded programs could be in danger. Some states are already looking to tap into rainy day funds if Congress does not pass a budget soon. But Illinois, which cannot pay its bills on time under normal conditions, does not have that option. The biggest immediate impact on states will likely be an economic one as thousands of their residents are laid off. About 800,000 federal workers nationwide will be laid off until a federal budget is approved. According to the Pew Charitable Trust’s news service, Stateline, Illinois has 45,801 civilian federal employees, but some of them will continue to work. Retired federal employees will continue to receive their benefits. “Unfortunately, the possible consequences to state economies of a federal shutdown or not increasing the national debt limit are severe. States are partners with the federal government in implementing most federal programs. A lack of certainty at the federal level from a shutdown therefore translates directly into uncertainty and instability at the state level,” said a letter that the National Governor’s Association sent to President Barack Obama and congressional leadership. “That uncertainty can lead to the suspension of programs and services, increased borrowing costs or even layoffs — all actions that will weaken our economies and potentially stall the national recovery.”
Affordable Care Act Questions and Answers
While the political battle that held up approval of a federal budget was essentially over a push to defund the new health care law, the implementation of Obamacare will continue largely unscathed by the shutdown. The Affordable Care Act falls into a category of mandatory spending along with other federal programs such as Medicare. This spending actually makes up the majority — 57 percent — of the federal budget.
Do I have to buy insurance right away? No. The exchange is open for business. Any coverage you buy now will not kick in until January 2014. But you must buy your insurance before December 15 to ensure that your coverage will begin in January. If you wait longer, your coverage would begin later. The open enrollment period for 2014 ends on March 31, 2014. After that date, you can only sign up if you have a life event, such as a marriage or career change.
What kind of insurance coverage is available on the exchange? The plans offer a base level of coverage for 10 service categories, including ambulatory care and prescriptions. The plans have a metal ranking, with bronze being the lowest cost plans. Under such bronze plans, consumers would likely pay lower premiums but would have more out-of-pocket costs, such as copayments. Under the higher-premium gold and platinum plans, patients would likely pay less out of pocket. The rates in Illinois will vary across the state.
Does my employer have to help pay for my insurance? Starting in 2015, businesses with more than 50 employees will be required to offer coverage to full-time employees or face penalty fines. Small businesses can opt to use the exchange to buy coverage for their employees starting today, but they are not required to.
I already have insurance. Will I have to buy a different kind? Most likely no, especially if you get your coverage through your employer. Those with bare bones plans or catastrophic plans would have to get more coverage to meet the insurance mandate that is part of the Affordable Care Act.
Can I keep seeing my doctor? Yes, if you do a little research. Some plans sold on the exchange will only cover care within the provider network for that plan. You should check to see if your doctor is in the provider network of a plan before you buy. You should be able to find provider information for each plan on the exchange’s website. Here is more info from the federal website.
I smoke or chew tobacco. Do I have to pay more for coverage on the exchange? Yes. Tobacco users will pay higher premiums for insurance. For instance a 40-year-old smoker in Cook County will pay $44 more per month for a basic bronze plan. The law allows insurance companies to charge smokers twice as much, but states can opt to keep the rates lower. Insurance plans offered on the exchange are also required to cover programs to help smokers quit. Here is more info.
I’m young, healthy and broke. Do I have to buy insurance? If your parents have insurance and are willing to let you stay on their plan, you can until you turn 26. If you are younger than 30, you may be eligible for catastrophic plans offered through the exchange. You also may be eligible for insurance subsidies or Medicaid.
How do I find out if I am eligible for subsidies or Medicaid? If you make between 138 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level — $15,856 to $45,960 for individuals — you will be eligible for federal subsidies that will cut your monthly premiums. If you make less than 138 percent of the poverty level, you could be eligible for Medicaid. You can use this subsidy calculator from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation to assess your personal situation.
What happens if I am not covered? If you do not get coverage in 2014, you will likely face a penalty on your tax bill in 2015. The fee would be 1 percent of your household income, or $95 a person, whichever is more. Fees for having uninsured children would be $47.50 per child. That penalty is capped at $285. If insurance premiums are more than 8 percent of your household income, or you do not make enough to file federal income taxes, you are exempted from the individual insurance mandate. There are some other exemptions to the individual mandate, including a religious exemption. For more info on exemptions to the mandate, see this story in the Washington Post.
How do I access the exchange? Go to www.healthcare.gov click the “apply now” button and then choose Illinois as your state. You can also go directly to the Illinois exchange, called Get Covered Illinois. Here is a checklist of the personal information you will need to purchase a plan. Note: As of this morning the federal site has a very slow load time, so you may be waiting a while. When I attempted to access the federal site, the system was down. It is likely overloaded by curious browsers and reporters like me trying to check it out on the first day. You may want to give it a little time before you try to use it to buy insurance. Or try out the direct state site. In the meantime, you can check out some of the information provided in this blog to do a little research.
I don’t have regular access to the Internet. How do I get signed up? I do have Internet access, but I find the marketplace confusing and could use a little help. Where can I find it? There is help available both in person and over the phone. You can find the numbers for a federal toll-free help line here. There are also local groups working to help people navigate the marketplace and get insurance. You can find one of these groups in your area by entering your ZIP code here.
Here is more info from the state of Illinois, including a short video that explains some of the key components of the law.
After the federal government shut down at midnight in a battle over Obamacare, the online health insurance marketplaces that are a cornerstone of the law rolled out across the country today.
Federal Government Shutdown
Some Republicans in Congress had been pushing to defund the Patient Protection and Affordable Care as a condition for their votes to approve a federal budget. Last night House Republicans approved a one-year delay in the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that all Americans have health insurance. The Senate rejected it, and the House refused to take up an extension of the federal budget previously approved by the Senate.
With no budget in place, all but what has been deemed “essential services” of the federal government have shut down. National parks and monuments are closed. Research labs have stopped their work. Many regulatory bodies will only maintain a bare bones staff. For instance, only 5 percent of the staff at the Environmental Protection Agency will work through the shutdown.
Social Security and federal entitlement programs, such as Medicare will continue to pay benefits. Mail service will also continue. So will services deemed necessary for safety or national security, such as the work done by the Federal Aviation Administration. However, most federal employees who report to work today will not be paid as long as there is no budget in place. Notably, members of Congress will continue to receive their checks, though some have vowed to forgo pay until the government is running again. The U.S. Constitution has a provision similar to the Illinois Constitution that prohibits any change in lawmakers’ pay during their terms. The 27th Amendment was intended to keep federal lawmakers from voting to increase their pay, but it will also keep their $174,000 annual salaries coming during the shutdown. Gov. Pat Quinn is currently trying to challenge that notion in Illinois after he vetoed the money for lawmaker’s salaries. Quinn says they should not be paid until the approve changes to the states troubled pension system. But a judge ruled last week that the move violated the state Constitution. Quinn is appealing to the Illinois Supreme Court.
Illinois officials say the federal shutdown would not halt state services in the short term. State employees who are paid with federal funds will face temporary layoffs as soon as tomorrow. The timing of the layoffs could vary across agencies because some may have enough cash on hand to keep employees working longer. According to Quinn’s office, the agencies that could see layoffs include the Departments of Labor, Veterans’ Affairs, Military Affairs, Illinois Emergency Management Agency, Office of Health Information Technology and the Department of Human Services’ Bureau of Disability Determination, which evaluates applicants for disability benefits. When the federal government last shut down in 1995, the state laid off 1,200 employees.
If the shutdown drags on, federally funded programs could be in danger. Some states are already looking to tap into rainy day funds if Congress does not pass a budget soon. But Illinois, which cannot pay its bills on time under normal conditions, does not have that option. The biggest immediate impact on states will likely be an economic one as thousands of their residents are laid off. About 800,000 federal workers nationwide will be laid off until a federal budget is approved. According to the Pew Charitable Trust’s news service, Stateline, Illinois has 45,801 civilian federal employees, but some of them will continue to work. Retired federal employees will continue to receive their benefits. “Unfortunately, the possible consequences to state economies of a federal shutdown or not increasing the national debt limit are severe. States are partners with the federal government in implementing most federal programs. A lack of certainty at the federal level from a shutdown therefore translates directly into uncertainty and instability at the state level,” said a letter that the National Governor’s Association sent to President Barack Obama and congressional leadership. “That uncertainty can lead to the suspension of programs and services, increased borrowing costs or even layoffs — all actions that will weaken our economies and potentially stall the national recovery.”
Affordable Care Act Questions and Answers
While the political battle that held up approval of a federal budget was essentially over a push to defund the new health care law, the implementation of Obamacare will continue largely unscathed by the shutdown. The Affordable Care Act falls into a category of mandatory spending along with other federal programs such as Medicare. This spending actually makes up the majority — 57 percent — of the federal budget.
Do I have to buy insurance right away? No. The exchange is open for business. Any coverage you buy now will not kick in until January 2014. But you must buy your insurance before December 15 to ensure that your coverage will begin in January. If you wait longer, your coverage would begin later. The open enrollment period for 2014 ends on March 31, 2014. After that date, you can only sign up if you have a life event, such as a marriage or career change.
What kind of insurance coverage is available on the exchange? The plans offer a base level of coverage for 10 service categories, including ambulatory care and prescriptions. The plans have a metal ranking, with bronze being the lowest cost plans. Under such bronze plans, consumers would likely pay lower premiums but would have more out-of-pocket costs, such as copayments. Under the higher-premium gold and platinum plans, patients would likely pay less out of pocket. The rates in Illinois will vary across the state.
Does my employer have to help pay for my insurance? Starting in 2015, businesses with more than 50 employees will be required to offer coverage to full-time employees or face penalty fines. Small businesses can opt to use the exchange to buy coverage for their employees starting today, but they are not required to.
I already have insurance. Will I have to buy a different kind? Most likely no, especially if you get your coverage through your employer. Those with bare bones plans or catastrophic plans would have to get more coverage to meet the insurance mandate that is part of the Affordable Care Act.
Can I keep seeing my doctor? Yes, if you do a little research. Some plans sold on the exchange will only cover care within the provider network for that plan. You should check to see if your doctor is in the provider network of a plan before you buy. You should be able to find provider information for each plan on the exchange’s website. Here is more info from the federal website.
I smoke or chew tobacco. Do I have to pay more for coverage on the exchange? Yes. Tobacco users will pay higher premiums for insurance. For instance a 40-year-old smoker in Cook County will pay $44 more per month for a basic bronze plan. The law allows insurance companies to charge smokers twice as much, but states can opt to keep the rates lower. Insurance plans offered on the exchange are also required to cover programs to help smokers quit. Here is more info.
I’m young, healthy and broke. Do I have to buy insurance? If your parents have insurance and are willing to let you stay on their plan, you can until you turn 26. If you are younger than 30, you may be eligible for catastrophic plans offered through the exchange. You also may be eligible for insurance subsidies or Medicaid.
How do I find out if I am eligible for subsidies or Medicaid? If you make between 138 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level — $15,856 to $45,960 for individuals — you will be eligible for federal subsidies that will cut your monthly premiums. If you make less than 138 percent of the poverty level, you could be eligible for Medicaid. You can use this subsidy calculator from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation to assess your personal situation.
What happens if I am not covered? If you do not get coverage in 2014, you will likely face a penalty on your tax bill in 2015. The fee would be 1 percent of your household income, or $95 a person, whichever is more. Fees for having uninsured children would be $47.50 per child. That penalty is capped at $285. If insurance premiums are more than 8 percent of your household income, or you do not make enough to file federal income taxes, you are exempted from the individual insurance mandate. There are some other exemptions to the individual mandate, including a religious exemption. For more info on exemptions to the mandate, see this story in the Washington Post.
How do I access the exchange? Go to www.healthcare.gov click the “apply now” button and then choose Illinois as your state. You can also go directly to the Illinois exchange, called Get Covered Illinois. Here is a checklist of the personal information you will need to purchase a plan. Note: As of this morning the federal site has a very slow load time, so you may be waiting a while. When I attempted to access the federal site, the system was down. It is likely overloaded by curious browsers and reporters like me trying to check it out on the first day. You may want to give it a little time before you try to use it to buy insurance. Or try out the direct state site. In the meantime, you can check out some of the information provided in this blog to do a little research.
I don’t have regular access to the Internet. How do I get signed up? I do have Internet access, but I find the marketplace confusing and could use a little help. Where can I find it? There is help available both in person and over the phone. You can find the numbers for a federal toll-free help line here. There are also local groups working to help people navigate the marketplace and get insurance. You can find one of these groups in your area by entering your ZIP code here.
Here is more info from the state of Illinois, including a short video that explains some of the key components of the law.
Monday, July 08, 2013
Quinn blows off committee that plans to blow his deadline
By Jamey Dunn
Members of a committee working to hammer out a pension reform compromise say Gov. Pat Quinn’s public threats about the deadline he set for them tomorrow are “counterproductive” to their work.
After the legislative conference committee on pension was formed at the governor’s request last month, Quinn gave the members three weeks to produce a pension bill. Tomorrow, their time is up. Committee members say they have no plans to present legislation tomorrow. The governor has not said what he will do if lawmakers blow the deadline, only that there will be “consequences.” Quinn told reporters in Chicago today: “It’s time for the General Assembly to put a pension reform bill on my desk. They have had one excuse after another for the last two years. It’s time for them to do their job. If they don’t do their job by tomorrow, there will be consequences.”
Both chambers of the legislature will be in session tomorrow to take up Quinn’s amendatory veto of concealed carry legislation. Despite the governor pushing the issue at several public events over the last few days, sponsors say they are confident they can find the votes to override Quinn’s changes.
Conference committee chair Sen. Kwame Raoul said the group has agreed to use a proposal from professors at the University of Illinois Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois as a framework for their proposal. The plan would swap the current 3 percent compounded annual COLA, which is the largest cost driver in the pension systems, for a COLA that is tied to inflation. Under SB 2591, which a Senate committee took testimony on this week, the COLA would be one-half of the adjusted Consumer Price Index from the previous year. That means that in times such as recent years, when inflation has been low, retirees would receive small COLAs or sometimes no COLA at all. But in years when inflation is high, retirees would get larger COLAs. Employees would also have to contribute 2 percent more of their salaries to their retirement benefits. However, Raoul said that the ideas the committee is considering are not identical to that plan.
Members of the committee say they are making progress, but they need estimates of cost savings, which are provided by actuaries working for the pension systems. “We have been working methodically to try to break from the process that has led to stalemate,” said Raoul, a Chicago Democrat. “What we dream of — of having bipartisanship and working in bicameral manner — we’re experiencing that on this conference committee, and that’s worthwhile in itself. But we have to solve the problem.” Without those numbers, they say they cannot have a clear picture of what the cost savings from a proposal might be. The group has agreed on several potential components of a plan, which they have sent to the systems for number crunching. Once they get the estimates back, they plan to choose from the list as a menu of options that can be pieced together. “You don’t want to do these things without having it actuarially scored. It would be irresponsible,” he said. “It would be irresponsible for us to just propose something by July 9th.” Raoul said the estimates are expected to be completed next week. He said the group might need to get another round of projections once they have a final plan together.
While Quinn talked tough in Chicago today, he declined an invitation from the committee to testify in Springfield. After a bill-signing event in Chicago, Quinn traveled to Springfield and was working in his office during the hearing. He sent instead Jerry Stermer, the director of his budget office. Stermer has been working with the committee as Quinn’s point man on pension changes. While members grilled Stermer about the deadline today, they said that they would have rather put the screws to Quinn. “What is more important for him today? ... He made a choice to send you instead of coming himself,” Raoul said. Raoul’s letter to Quinn gave him the option of sending someone to represent him. “I hate that you’re the person that has to be here instead of the governor himself.” Many of the members of the committee echoed Raoul’s statements, saying Stermer had worked well with the group so far.
Stermer would not get specific about what sort of plan the governor would like the see come out of the committee process. “The governor’s proposal has been and continues to be: We need a comprehensive solution that stabilizes these systems and enables the systems to actually pay the pensions of the people who have earned them, will erase the unfunded ability, get to 100 percent funding and end the squeeze on the major obligations of state government,” he said. He parroted these components as a response to questions from the committee so many times that his repetition eventually drew laughter from the public audience.
Sen. Matt Murphy, a Palatine Republican, noted that many members of the two chambers had very different ideas about what constituted comprehensive changes to the pension systems, and these differences lead to gridlock. Both the House and Senate approved their own pension plans during the spring session, but each failed to pass the plan that came over from the other chamber. Murphy said that if the governor does not get specific on components or at least the amount of savings he thinks are needed, “how do we know whether the plan solves the problem [in his eyes]?” Raoul agreed. “It is important to get a sense from the gentleman who is going to sign the final bill as to what he perceives as fixing the problem.”
Stermer would also not give specifics about what consequences lawmakers face after they miss tomorrow’s deadline. He only said that one of the consequences would be that they would have to explain it to their constituents. Quinn has yet to sign one budget bill, House Bill 214, which is the spending authority for several state programs and agencies. It also contains the funds for state lawmakers' pay. There has been speculation that he will veto the funds for legislator’s paychecks. This would force them to either present a pension bill or override his veto. An override would make great campaign fodder for any potential opponents wanting to claim that lawmakers put their own interests ahead of taxpayers by returning to Springfield to approve their own pay without a pension agreement. A spokeswoman for the governor declined to comment on the rumors, saying only that the bill is “under review.”
Committee members argued that instead of pushing their work ahead, Quinn’s deadline and bluster could put a strain on the negotiations. “We all have that goal, and I think it would behoove all of us to behave in a fashion that would move us toward that goal,” said Rep. Elaine Nekritz, a Northbrook Democrat. Raoul said that Quinn’s prodding is not making the committee rush, but that members do understand that the situation is urgent. “The conference committee is working. We’re not going to finish our work by tomorrow. Whatever, the governor’s consequences [are], that’s fine. We’re going to continue to working whether or not there is a consequence tomorrow.”
But those working for Quinn point out that as lawmakers have failed to get the job done, the unfunded liability has grown to nearly $100 billion, and Illinois has paid the price through higher borrowing costs after being slapped with several credit downgrades. They say the governor is tired of hearing excuses from lawmakers about why pension reform cannot be passed. “He made it very clear to the members that they had three weeks to forge a compromise. It’s their responsibility to do so,” said Quinn spokeswoman Brooke Anderson. “What exactly is there to give taxpayers any assurance that lawmakers will enact comprehensive pensions reform and finally resolve this problem?”
Raoul said the group is getting two different messages from Quinn: the sound bites for the media and their own interactions with Stermer. Quinn’s office made some suggestions that actuaries are also working on. The estimates on Quinn’s proposals will not be complete until July 12. “The reason that I invited the governor was because there was a bit of an inconsistency as to what was being said from his office publicly and the work that Mr. Stermer, the representative of his office, was doing privately. So you want to know which is which. Am I wasting my time with Mr. Stermer and having these discussions? Should I be listening to ... Brooke Anderson? Who’s telling the truth here? The only person who could resolve that — you know, the buck stops at the governor.”
Members of a committee working to hammer out a pension reform compromise say Gov. Pat Quinn’s public threats about the deadline he set for them tomorrow are “counterproductive” to their work.
After the legislative conference committee on pension was formed at the governor’s request last month, Quinn gave the members three weeks to produce a pension bill. Tomorrow, their time is up. Committee members say they have no plans to present legislation tomorrow. The governor has not said what he will do if lawmakers blow the deadline, only that there will be “consequences.” Quinn told reporters in Chicago today: “It’s time for the General Assembly to put a pension reform bill on my desk. They have had one excuse after another for the last two years. It’s time for them to do their job. If they don’t do their job by tomorrow, there will be consequences.”
Both chambers of the legislature will be in session tomorrow to take up Quinn’s amendatory veto of concealed carry legislation. Despite the governor pushing the issue at several public events over the last few days, sponsors say they are confident they can find the votes to override Quinn’s changes.
Conference committee chair Sen. Kwame Raoul said the group has agreed to use a proposal from professors at the University of Illinois Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois as a framework for their proposal. The plan would swap the current 3 percent compounded annual COLA, which is the largest cost driver in the pension systems, for a COLA that is tied to inflation. Under SB 2591, which a Senate committee took testimony on this week, the COLA would be one-half of the adjusted Consumer Price Index from the previous year. That means that in times such as recent years, when inflation has been low, retirees would receive small COLAs or sometimes no COLA at all. But in years when inflation is high, retirees would get larger COLAs. Employees would also have to contribute 2 percent more of their salaries to their retirement benefits. However, Raoul said that the ideas the committee is considering are not identical to that plan.
Members of the committee say they are making progress, but they need estimates of cost savings, which are provided by actuaries working for the pension systems. “We have been working methodically to try to break from the process that has led to stalemate,” said Raoul, a Chicago Democrat. “What we dream of — of having bipartisanship and working in bicameral manner — we’re experiencing that on this conference committee, and that’s worthwhile in itself. But we have to solve the problem.” Without those numbers, they say they cannot have a clear picture of what the cost savings from a proposal might be. The group has agreed on several potential components of a plan, which they have sent to the systems for number crunching. Once they get the estimates back, they plan to choose from the list as a menu of options that can be pieced together. “You don’t want to do these things without having it actuarially scored. It would be irresponsible,” he said. “It would be irresponsible for us to just propose something by July 9th.” Raoul said the estimates are expected to be completed next week. He said the group might need to get another round of projections once they have a final plan together.
While Quinn talked tough in Chicago today, he declined an invitation from the committee to testify in Springfield. After a bill-signing event in Chicago, Quinn traveled to Springfield and was working in his office during the hearing. He sent instead Jerry Stermer, the director of his budget office. Stermer has been working with the committee as Quinn’s point man on pension changes. While members grilled Stermer about the deadline today, they said that they would have rather put the screws to Quinn. “What is more important for him today? ... He made a choice to send you instead of coming himself,” Raoul said. Raoul’s letter to Quinn gave him the option of sending someone to represent him. “I hate that you’re the person that has to be here instead of the governor himself.” Many of the members of the committee echoed Raoul’s statements, saying Stermer had worked well with the group so far.
Stermer would not get specific about what sort of plan the governor would like the see come out of the committee process. “The governor’s proposal has been and continues to be: We need a comprehensive solution that stabilizes these systems and enables the systems to actually pay the pensions of the people who have earned them, will erase the unfunded ability, get to 100 percent funding and end the squeeze on the major obligations of state government,” he said. He parroted these components as a response to questions from the committee so many times that his repetition eventually drew laughter from the public audience.
Sen. Matt Murphy, a Palatine Republican, noted that many members of the two chambers had very different ideas about what constituted comprehensive changes to the pension systems, and these differences lead to gridlock. Both the House and Senate approved their own pension plans during the spring session, but each failed to pass the plan that came over from the other chamber. Murphy said that if the governor does not get specific on components or at least the amount of savings he thinks are needed, “how do we know whether the plan solves the problem [in his eyes]?” Raoul agreed. “It is important to get a sense from the gentleman who is going to sign the final bill as to what he perceives as fixing the problem.”
Stermer would also not give specifics about what consequences lawmakers face after they miss tomorrow’s deadline. He only said that one of the consequences would be that they would have to explain it to their constituents. Quinn has yet to sign one budget bill, House Bill 214, which is the spending authority for several state programs and agencies. It also contains the funds for state lawmakers' pay. There has been speculation that he will veto the funds for legislator’s paychecks. This would force them to either present a pension bill or override his veto. An override would make great campaign fodder for any potential opponents wanting to claim that lawmakers put their own interests ahead of taxpayers by returning to Springfield to approve their own pay without a pension agreement. A spokeswoman for the governor declined to comment on the rumors, saying only that the bill is “under review.”
Committee members argued that instead of pushing their work ahead, Quinn’s deadline and bluster could put a strain on the negotiations. “We all have that goal, and I think it would behoove all of us to behave in a fashion that would move us toward that goal,” said Rep. Elaine Nekritz, a Northbrook Democrat. Raoul said that Quinn’s prodding is not making the committee rush, but that members do understand that the situation is urgent. “The conference committee is working. We’re not going to finish our work by tomorrow. Whatever, the governor’s consequences [are], that’s fine. We’re going to continue to working whether or not there is a consequence tomorrow.”
But those working for Quinn point out that as lawmakers have failed to get the job done, the unfunded liability has grown to nearly $100 billion, and Illinois has paid the price through higher borrowing costs after being slapped with several credit downgrades. They say the governor is tired of hearing excuses from lawmakers about why pension reform cannot be passed. “He made it very clear to the members that they had three weeks to forge a compromise. It’s their responsibility to do so,” said Quinn spokeswoman Brooke Anderson. “What exactly is there to give taxpayers any assurance that lawmakers will enact comprehensive pensions reform and finally resolve this problem?”
Raoul said the group is getting two different messages from Quinn: the sound bites for the media and their own interactions with Stermer. Quinn’s office made some suggestions that actuaries are also working on. The estimates on Quinn’s proposals will not be complete until July 12. “The reason that I invited the governor was because there was a bit of an inconsistency as to what was being said from his office publicly and the work that Mr. Stermer, the representative of his office, was doing privately. So you want to know which is which. Am I wasting my time with Mr. Stermer and having these discussions? Should I be listening to ... Brooke Anderson? Who’s telling the truth here? The only person who could resolve that — you know, the buck stops at the governor.”
Monday, July 01, 2013
State ended fiscal year with $6.1 billion in unpaid bills
By Jamey Dunn
As its 2014 fiscal year begins today, Illinois still has a stack of $6.1 billion in unpaid bills.
The backlog will be smaller than the $7.5 billion in bills the state owed when FY 13 began last July. However, state Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka estimates that the backlog will grow to $7.5 billion by August. The state ended the FY 13 fiscal year with 73,184 unpaid bills. The oldest bill was from June 2013. Those bills make up about half of the estimated $6.1 billion. Topinka said the rest are sitting at state agencies and have not yet been sent to her office.
Abdon Pallasch, Gov. Pat Quinn’s assistant budget director, said that a bump in the backlog heading into the last half of the calendar year is “cyclical” and to be expected because the bulk of the state’s revenues come when people pay their income taxes in the spring. However, he said that recently, the backlog has experienced a “steady downward trend” as more than $1 billion in unexpected tax revenue — dubbed the “April surprise by Quinn’s camp — allowed the state to pay off old Medicaid bills and bring in matching federal funds. “Part of the focus is to tackle the backlog of bills brought on by under-appropriations of state programs by the General Assembly. That backlog had risen to $9.1 billion in 2012. But thanks to the governor's cost-cutting and focus on paying the back bills, that backlog is down to $6.3 billion and on track to go down to $5.9 billion by the end of FY14,” Pallasch said. “Passage of comprehensive pension reform would greatly aid the governor's efforts to keep bringing that number down. A one-time infusion of $1.3 billion in tax receipts in April also is aiding the effort.” A one-day special session on pension reform in June produced little results, and Quinn has given lawmakers until July 9 to reach a compromise. A conference committee comprising members of both parties and both chambers is meeting to try and craft pension changes that can pass in both the House and the Senate.
Topinka said the additional revenues helped to get some bills paid, but it really only made a small dent in what the state owes to vendors, schools and service providers. “Make no mistake, the ‘April surprise’ is history,” Topinka said. “That windfall allowed us to aggressively pay down bills and provide some relief to vendors, but it did nothing to address the state's systemic budget problems.” She stressed that the state must come up with a comprehensive plan to address its backlog. “Despite years of hand-wringing about state finances, nothing has changed. We continue to force businesses, hospitals, schools and service agencies to wait months on end for promised payment from the state. It is unconscionable and further highlights the importance of keeping spending flat and restoring our fiscal integrity.”
Quinn has supported borrowing billions to pay down the backlog and essentially refinance the state’s debt to vendors at a lower interest rate. However, Topinka has been a vocal opponent of the idea, likening it to taking out a credit card to pay off other debts. In recent years Quinn backed off the borrowing idea as it has consistently failed to get the needed backing to pass in the legislature. He and Democratic legislative leaders have instead opted to slowly chip away at the state’s backlog each year.
The state has faced billions in unpaid bills for years. For more on that, see Illinois Issues March 2010.
As its 2014 fiscal year begins today, Illinois still has a stack of $6.1 billion in unpaid bills.
The backlog will be smaller than the $7.5 billion in bills the state owed when FY 13 began last July. However, state Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka estimates that the backlog will grow to $7.5 billion by August. The state ended the FY 13 fiscal year with 73,184 unpaid bills. The oldest bill was from June 2013. Those bills make up about half of the estimated $6.1 billion. Topinka said the rest are sitting at state agencies and have not yet been sent to her office.
Abdon Pallasch, Gov. Pat Quinn’s assistant budget director, said that a bump in the backlog heading into the last half of the calendar year is “cyclical” and to be expected because the bulk of the state’s revenues come when people pay their income taxes in the spring. However, he said that recently, the backlog has experienced a “steady downward trend” as more than $1 billion in unexpected tax revenue — dubbed the “April surprise by Quinn’s camp — allowed the state to pay off old Medicaid bills and bring in matching federal funds. “Part of the focus is to tackle the backlog of bills brought on by under-appropriations of state programs by the General Assembly. That backlog had risen to $9.1 billion in 2012. But thanks to the governor's cost-cutting and focus on paying the back bills, that backlog is down to $6.3 billion and on track to go down to $5.9 billion by the end of FY14,” Pallasch said. “Passage of comprehensive pension reform would greatly aid the governor's efforts to keep bringing that number down. A one-time infusion of $1.3 billion in tax receipts in April also is aiding the effort.” A one-day special session on pension reform in June produced little results, and Quinn has given lawmakers until July 9 to reach a compromise. A conference committee comprising members of both parties and both chambers is meeting to try and craft pension changes that can pass in both the House and the Senate.
Topinka said the additional revenues helped to get some bills paid, but it really only made a small dent in what the state owes to vendors, schools and service providers. “Make no mistake, the ‘April surprise’ is history,” Topinka said. “That windfall allowed us to aggressively pay down bills and provide some relief to vendors, but it did nothing to address the state's systemic budget problems.” She stressed that the state must come up with a comprehensive plan to address its backlog. “Despite years of hand-wringing about state finances, nothing has changed. We continue to force businesses, hospitals, schools and service agencies to wait months on end for promised payment from the state. It is unconscionable and further highlights the importance of keeping spending flat and restoring our fiscal integrity.”
Quinn has supported borrowing billions to pay down the backlog and essentially refinance the state’s debt to vendors at a lower interest rate. However, Topinka has been a vocal opponent of the idea, likening it to taking out a credit card to pay off other debts. In recent years Quinn backed off the borrowing idea as it has consistently failed to get the needed backing to pass in the legislature. He and Democratic legislative leaders have instead opted to slowly chip away at the state’s backlog each year.
The state has faced billions in unpaid bills for years. For more on that, see Illinois Issues March 2010.
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Committee likely to mine old ground for pension compromise
By Jamey Dunn
On Wednesday, the Illinois Senate and House voted to hand over pension reform to a group of 10 legislators who will try to produce a compromise that can pass in both chambers. Several pension ideas have been floated in recent years, and components of those proposals will likely make their way into the committee’s recommendations.
“I think the healthy way to do this is to walk into the room and say, ‘We’ve got a lot of different things that have been Frankensteined together, and let us now examine all of them and see what we can assemble that can get 30 votes in the Senate, 60 votes in the House and achieve adequate savings to put the state on a manageable fiscal course,’” said Sen. Daniel Biss, an Evanston Democrat. Biss was chosen by Senate President John Cullerton to serve on the conference committee. He has been a key player in the efforts to pass changes to the state’s pension systems. However, Biss has been in favor of Senate Bill 1, a measure opposed by Cullerton but backed by House Speaker Michael Madigan. Supporters of SB 1 say that it creates enough savings, by reducing employee benefits, to ensure that the public employee pension systems would be stabilized for the foreseeable future. They argue that the state’s shaky fiscal situation and the nearly $100 billion unfunded liability would justify the Illinois Supreme Court granting lawmakers special powers to fix the problem, despite a constitutional protection for pension benefits.
SB 1 would:
SB1 passed the House in early May with 62 “yes” votes, but it fell short of the 30 votes needed in the Senate. Only 16 senators voted in favor of the bill when it was called for a vote on the floor on May 30. Senate President Cullerton believes that SB 1 is unconstitutional because it does not offer employees anything in return for cutting their benefits. He worked out a compromise with the unions that would offer employees a variety of choices.
Under Cullerton's preferred bill, SB 2404:
But Cullerton’s plan apparently would save far less than SB1. There is also a level of uncertainty because they savings would hinge on which choices employees made. Madigan refused to call Cullerton’s plan for a floor vote in the House despite Cullerton’s insistence that the bill had the support needed to pass in that chamber. Cullerton argues that Madigan's SB1 will save nothing if it is tossed out by the Illinois Supreme Court.
“There needs to be some consensus around what makes it constitutional and a consensus around an adequate level of savings,” says Northbrook Democratic Rep. Elaine Nekritz, who is one of the members Madigan chose to serve on the conference committee. Like Biss, Nekritz has been a point person on the issue for some time and a strong supporter of SB 1. Nekritz said the House will likely never vote on Cullerton’s proposal, but she said, “That doesn’t change the fact that we all recognize that ‘just say no’ is not going to be an active response right now.” So the key for the committee will be finding something that satisfies Cullerton’s demand that employees be offered some kind of consideration for cuts to benefits, while still saving enough money to gain the backing of those who supported SB 1 — most important of all, Madigan.
The presumption is that to reach this compromise, the committee will pull largely from legislation and concepts that have already been debated. “You can cook the soup a number of different ways, but the ingredients are pretty limited at this point,” said Kent Redfield, an emeritus professor of political science at the University of Illinois Springfield.
Biss said he knows that the final product will likely not save the $187 billion that SB 1 is expected to cut. “My view is that there’s room to give on both sides. I think that we’ll need to land in the triple digits. I think if we land in the $125[billion] to $150 billion range, that’s likely to provide the level of fiscal relief that the state needs.” Cullerton this week indicated that he might be open to a model of consideration that does not involve a choice.
A proposal from the Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois would swap the current 3 percent compounded annual COLA, which is the largest cost driver in the pension systems, for a COLA that is tied to inflation. Under SB 2591, which a Senate committee took testimony on this week, the COLA would be one-half of the adjusted Consumer Price Index from the previous year. That means that in times such as recent years, when inflation has been low, retirees would receive small COLAs or sometimes no COLA at all. But in years when inflation is high, retirees would get larger COLAs.
The framers of this proposal say that other factors would help to negate the cost for COLAs in high-inflation years. “Linking COLA to inflation will also reduce the cost of providing the increases during periods of low inflation. Costs would increase when inflation is high; but the impact of this higher cost is mitigated by the fact that the state’s tax base, and thus the state’s tax revenue, rises more quickly when inflation is high,” said a report on the plan from the IGPA. The authors of the report say that this change to COLAs would constitute consideration and would make their plan constitutional. “The truth is that the current COLA provision offers no protection against high inflation — which is an essential feature of any good pension system. It is for this reason that we believe that annuity increases should be linked to some measure correlated with inflation,” the report says. “In our view, it would be constitutionally permissible to reduce the expected average future increase in exchange for the valuable insurance protection that individuals would receive during periods of high inflation.”
Cullerton did not indicate he was in favor of the idea this week, but did say that the plan is something to be considered. The proposal would also require employees to contribute an additional 2 percent of their pay toward retirement benefits. The legislation has the support of the public university presidents and is intended to be coupled with a bill that would gradually shift the future costs of employee retirement benefits to the universities. SB 2591 would apply only to the State University Retirement System, but concepts from the plan could be applied to the other systems for state workers, teachers and lawmakers. Cullerton also said this week that it is possible that different changes would be made to the different systems.
Other pieces may end up in a final plan, such as a funding guarantee that would allow the systems to sue if the state does not make its required annual contribution. Both SB 1 and SB 2404 had some version of a guarantee. Some who back SB 1 have even floated the idea of the guarantee being the thing that is given as consideration in exchange for benefit reductions. However, Cullerton has not warmed to this idea in the past. Recent proposals have also called for money that is currently being used to pay off borrowing that was made to make past pension payments to be redirected to pay down the unfunded liability once the bonds are retired. That could mean an additional $1 billion annually for pensions costs.
Redfield said that even though pension changes are now in the hands of the committee, in the end it will be legislative leaders who are still calling the shots. “Certainly, in terms of the Democrats, I don’t think Cullerton and Madigan have delegated their power to negotiate to those people. They can’t cut a deal independently of their leader. I don’t think that’s going to happen,” he said. “It still comes down to the leaders, and to a certain extent it comes down to one of the [Democratic] leaders backing down from where they were a week ago.”
On Wednesday, the Illinois Senate and House voted to hand over pension reform to a group of 10 legislators who will try to produce a compromise that can pass in both chambers. Several pension ideas have been floated in recent years, and components of those proposals will likely make their way into the committee’s recommendations.
“I think the healthy way to do this is to walk into the room and say, ‘We’ve got a lot of different things that have been Frankensteined together, and let us now examine all of them and see what we can assemble that can get 30 votes in the Senate, 60 votes in the House and achieve adequate savings to put the state on a manageable fiscal course,’” said Sen. Daniel Biss, an Evanston Democrat. Biss was chosen by Senate President John Cullerton to serve on the conference committee. He has been a key player in the efforts to pass changes to the state’s pension systems. However, Biss has been in favor of Senate Bill 1, a measure opposed by Cullerton but backed by House Speaker Michael Madigan. Supporters of SB 1 say that it creates enough savings, by reducing employee benefits, to ensure that the public employee pension systems would be stabilized for the foreseeable future. They argue that the state’s shaky fiscal situation and the nearly $100 billion unfunded liability would justify the Illinois Supreme Court granting lawmakers special powers to fix the problem, despite a constitutional protection for pension benefits.
SB 1 would:
- Increase the retirement age for employees younger than 46. Employees from 40 to 45 would see a one-year increase, employees 35 to 39 would see a three-year increase and employees 34 and younger would see a five-year increase.
- Require employees to contribute 2 percent more of their salaries. The increased contribution would be phased in over two years.
- Cap pensionable salary at $109,000, the limit that is currently used for Tier Two employees. The cap would increase at the rate of one half of the Consumer Price Index that is set for urban consumers. Base the amount of pension benefits that would be eligible for cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) on the amount of time employees worked. For each year of employment, $1,000 (or $800 for employees who receive Social Security benefits) of pension income would be eligible for a cost-of-living adjustment. For example, if an employee worked for 30 years, then $30,000 of his or her retirement benefit would see an annual COLA. Before employees reached their cap, they would receive a compounding COLA. After they reached the cap, they would get a flat annual increase.
SB1 passed the House in early May with 62 “yes” votes, but it fell short of the 30 votes needed in the Senate. Only 16 senators voted in favor of the bill when it was called for a vote on the floor on May 30. Senate President Cullerton believes that SB 1 is unconstitutional because it does not offer employees anything in return for cutting their benefits. He worked out a compromise with the unions that would offer employees a variety of choices.
Under Cullerton's preferred bill, SB 2404:
- Option 1 Employees would give up their current 3 percent compounded cost of living adjustment for a flat 3 percent COLA that would be delayed for three years after retirement. In exchange, the employees would receive access to retiree health care plans, and future raises would count toward their pensions. They would also have the option of enrolling in a 401(k)-like plan to supplement their pensions.
- Option 2 Under this option, employees would keep their compounded COLAs but would lose access to retiree health care, which is currently subsidized by the state. Their future raises would not count toward pension benefits
- Option 3 Employees would keep their COLAs and access to retiree health care, but they would pay 2 percent more of their salaries to their retirement benefits. Their COLAs would be delayed for three years after retirement.
- Option 1 Workers would keep the 3 percent compounded COLA but give up access to retiree health care.
- Option 2 They could still have access to retiree health care and a 3 percent compounded COLA, but the COLA would be frozen for two years.
But Cullerton’s plan apparently would save far less than SB1. There is also a level of uncertainty because they savings would hinge on which choices employees made. Madigan refused to call Cullerton’s plan for a floor vote in the House despite Cullerton’s insistence that the bill had the support needed to pass in that chamber. Cullerton argues that Madigan's SB1 will save nothing if it is tossed out by the Illinois Supreme Court.
“There needs to be some consensus around what makes it constitutional and a consensus around an adequate level of savings,” says Northbrook Democratic Rep. Elaine Nekritz, who is one of the members Madigan chose to serve on the conference committee. Like Biss, Nekritz has been a point person on the issue for some time and a strong supporter of SB 1. Nekritz said the House will likely never vote on Cullerton’s proposal, but she said, “That doesn’t change the fact that we all recognize that ‘just say no’ is not going to be an active response right now.” So the key for the committee will be finding something that satisfies Cullerton’s demand that employees be offered some kind of consideration for cuts to benefits, while still saving enough money to gain the backing of those who supported SB 1 — most important of all, Madigan.
The presumption is that to reach this compromise, the committee will pull largely from legislation and concepts that have already been debated. “You can cook the soup a number of different ways, but the ingredients are pretty limited at this point,” said Kent Redfield, an emeritus professor of political science at the University of Illinois Springfield.
Biss said he knows that the final product will likely not save the $187 billion that SB 1 is expected to cut. “My view is that there’s room to give on both sides. I think that we’ll need to land in the triple digits. I think if we land in the $125[billion] to $150 billion range, that’s likely to provide the level of fiscal relief that the state needs.” Cullerton this week indicated that he might be open to a model of consideration that does not involve a choice.
A proposal from the Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois would swap the current 3 percent compounded annual COLA, which is the largest cost driver in the pension systems, for a COLA that is tied to inflation. Under SB 2591, which a Senate committee took testimony on this week, the COLA would be one-half of the adjusted Consumer Price Index from the previous year. That means that in times such as recent years, when inflation has been low, retirees would receive small COLAs or sometimes no COLA at all. But in years when inflation is high, retirees would get larger COLAs.
The framers of this proposal say that other factors would help to negate the cost for COLAs in high-inflation years. “Linking COLA to inflation will also reduce the cost of providing the increases during periods of low inflation. Costs would increase when inflation is high; but the impact of this higher cost is mitigated by the fact that the state’s tax base, and thus the state’s tax revenue, rises more quickly when inflation is high,” said a report on the plan from the IGPA. The authors of the report say that this change to COLAs would constitute consideration and would make their plan constitutional. “The truth is that the current COLA provision offers no protection against high inflation — which is an essential feature of any good pension system. It is for this reason that we believe that annuity increases should be linked to some measure correlated with inflation,” the report says. “In our view, it would be constitutionally permissible to reduce the expected average future increase in exchange for the valuable insurance protection that individuals would receive during periods of high inflation.”
Cullerton did not indicate he was in favor of the idea this week, but did say that the plan is something to be considered. The proposal would also require employees to contribute an additional 2 percent of their pay toward retirement benefits. The legislation has the support of the public university presidents and is intended to be coupled with a bill that would gradually shift the future costs of employee retirement benefits to the universities. SB 2591 would apply only to the State University Retirement System, but concepts from the plan could be applied to the other systems for state workers, teachers and lawmakers. Cullerton also said this week that it is possible that different changes would be made to the different systems.
Other pieces may end up in a final plan, such as a funding guarantee that would allow the systems to sue if the state does not make its required annual contribution. Both SB 1 and SB 2404 had some version of a guarantee. Some who back SB 1 have even floated the idea of the guarantee being the thing that is given as consideration in exchange for benefit reductions. However, Cullerton has not warmed to this idea in the past. Recent proposals have also called for money that is currently being used to pay off borrowing that was made to make past pension payments to be redirected to pay down the unfunded liability once the bonds are retired. That could mean an additional $1 billion annually for pensions costs.
Redfield said that even though pension changes are now in the hands of the committee, in the end it will be legislative leaders who are still calling the shots. “Certainly, in terms of the Democrats, I don’t think Cullerton and Madigan have delegated their power to negotiate to those people. They can’t cut a deal independently of their leader. I don’t think that’s going to happen,” he said. “It still comes down to the leaders, and to a certain extent it comes down to one of the [Democratic] leaders backing down from where they were a week ago.”
Thursday, June 06, 2013
After two credit downgrades in a week, Quinn calls special session
By Jamey Dunn
Gov. Pat Quinn has called a special legislative session later this month after Moody’s Investor Services made good on its threat to downgrade the state’s credit rating.
Quinn is calling for a special session starting on June 19. “Here we go again. Will two downgrades in one week be enough to convince the General Assembly that our pension crisis can't be ignored anymore? Time and time again over the past two years, I have proposed, asked and pushed members of the General Assembly to send me a comprehensive pension reform bill. Time and time again, failure to act by deadlines has resulted in the bond rating agencies lowering our credit rating, which hurts our economy, wastes taxpayer money and shortchanges the education of our children,” Quinn said in a written statement this afternoon. “Legislators and their leaders know what they need to do to return Illinois to sound financial footing.”
Today, Moody’s knocked the state’s rating for general obligation bonds down to A3 from A2 and gave the state a negative future outlook. Before the downgrade, Illinois already had the lowest rating of any state in the nation. Fitch Ratings dropped the state’s bond rating earlier this week. Both rating downgrades were spurred in part by the legislature’s failure to pass comprehensive changes to the state’s pension systems for public employees before the spring session adjourned last week. Lower bond ratings means the state may pay more interest for future borrowing.
Moody’s does not expect that a pension solution will be approved soon and doubts the General Assembly’s ability to make fiscal reforms in preparation of the scheduled roll back of the temporary income tax increase, which will begin in 2015 unless a vote is taken to stop it. “The Illinois General Assembly on May 31 concluded its session without addressing the severe pension liabilities that are the state's greatest credit challenge. Our rating now assumes the government will not take action to reduce the state's pension liabilities any time soon,” said an analysis from Moody’s. “The legislature's political paralysis to date shows not only the magnitude of Illinois' unfunded benefit liabilities but also the legal and political hurdles to legislation that would make pensions more manageable long term. Without significant reforms, substantial growth in both unfunded liabilities and in annual funding burden are likely in coming years. This trend may coincide with the expiration of most of the income tax increases the state imposed in fiscal 2011 to help cover pension costs.”
Moody’s announcement of the rating decrease was especially harsh on Illinois lawmakers. “An A3 rating, while very low for a U.S. state, is consistent with the General Assembly's inability to steer the state from a path to fiscal distress.”
Quinn’s call for special session comes with no indication that leaders have reached a compromise on pension reform. House Speaker Michael Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton fundamentally disagree on how to go about changing the pension systems for public employees. Madigan’s Senate Bill 1 was soundly rejected by the Senate during the last week of session, and the House did not take a vote on Cullerton’s SB 2404 before adjournment. Supporters of Cullerton’s plan say that model, which offers employees a choice in their benefits reduction, is constitutional. They argue that Madigan’s plan, which would unilaterally cut benefits, is not. Backers of SB 1 say Cullerton’s plan would not save enough to stabilize the pension systems, which have an estimated $100 billion unfunded liability. The House also approved a bill to gradually shift future pension costs to universities and community colleges, which the institutions agreed to. But the proposal failed in the Senate on the last day of session.
Republican legislative leaders are generally on board with Quinn’s call for a special session. “Our pension crisis is so severe that Illinois’ credit rating has been downgraded twice in one week,” House Minority Leader Tom Cross said in a prepared statement. “The sooner the Illinois General Assembly returns to Springfield to get the job done on pension reform, the better,” Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno said she “appreciates” the call for session, but she has some reservations. “The governor did call today to tell me his intentions to call a special session. I appreciate the call — but I’m not sure what dynamics have changed in this pension reform discussion. Clearly there is a rift amongst Democrat leaders. Despite their supermajority status, they missed a prime opportunity to enact comprehensive pension reform. We hope that opportunity will still be there now that it will take a supermajority vote in each chamber to pass. Senate Republicans remain willing to work on advancing a pension reform plan that substantially solves the problem.”
When Quinn called a special session on pensions last summer, lawmakers came to the capital for one day, and no compromise pension reform plan materialized. Quinn then vowed to launch a “grassroots” campaign for pensions changes that produced an Internet ad campaign and the much-derided pension reform mascot, Squeezy the pension python.
Democratic legislative leaders had less to say about the announcement. “The Senate president’s office is notifying members of the governor’s request to return to Springfield on June 19th,” said a statement from Senate President John Cullerton’s office. “Moody’s provides more damning evidence that we can’t afford a continual stalemate on pensions. It’s time to identify a reasonable compromise that can pass both chambers with a three-fifths vote.” Madigan spokesman Steve Brown said he has seen nothing that points to a new development on pensions. Madigan did not attend a meeting on pensions held by Quinn earlier this week. “The House will convene,” Brown said. “The House has passed two pretty decent bills: one that has pretty significant [pension] saving and one that ends the free lunch [of the state picking up pension costs for schools].” He said that it would be unlikely that the House would consider legislation that “does anything less” than the bills the chamber has already passed.
Union officials are pushing for Cullerton’s bill. “Moody's rating downgrade makes clear that the House of Representatives must act swiftly to finish the work of sound pension reform the Senate has initiated. Moody's has concerns over ‘legal and political hurdles’ and calls for a ‘credible, comprehensive long-term pension funding plan’ to be implemented. They have laid out the path that should be followed, and it clearly leads to SB 2404. SB 2404 is the only legal, comprehensive, and responsible pension funding solution. It will restore fiscal stability and solvency to the state’s pension systems,” said a statement from the We Are One Coalition.
During the special session, lawmakers may also address concealed carry legislation if Quinn decides to veto House Bill 183, which was approved last week. It is possible the governor would use his veto pen to write in gun control measures that were not passed, such as a high-capacity magazine ban or a ban on assault weapons. Legislators would likely vote to override such a veto. And of course, as happens with many special session, the specters of a host of issues that did not pass during the regular session will likely be raised. Keep an eye out for a renewed push for the legalization of same-sex marriage and a new version of a gaming expansion proposal. However, Quinn could limit the session to a specific topic. Any legislation passed at this point would require a three-fifths majority in both chambers to go into effect before next year.
Gov. Pat Quinn has called a special legislative session later this month after Moody’s Investor Services made good on its threat to downgrade the state’s credit rating.
Quinn is calling for a special session starting on June 19. “Here we go again. Will two downgrades in one week be enough to convince the General Assembly that our pension crisis can't be ignored anymore? Time and time again over the past two years, I have proposed, asked and pushed members of the General Assembly to send me a comprehensive pension reform bill. Time and time again, failure to act by deadlines has resulted in the bond rating agencies lowering our credit rating, which hurts our economy, wastes taxpayer money and shortchanges the education of our children,” Quinn said in a written statement this afternoon. “Legislators and their leaders know what they need to do to return Illinois to sound financial footing.”
Today, Moody’s knocked the state’s rating for general obligation bonds down to A3 from A2 and gave the state a negative future outlook. Before the downgrade, Illinois already had the lowest rating of any state in the nation. Fitch Ratings dropped the state’s bond rating earlier this week. Both rating downgrades were spurred in part by the legislature’s failure to pass comprehensive changes to the state’s pension systems for public employees before the spring session adjourned last week. Lower bond ratings means the state may pay more interest for future borrowing.
Moody’s does not expect that a pension solution will be approved soon and doubts the General Assembly’s ability to make fiscal reforms in preparation of the scheduled roll back of the temporary income tax increase, which will begin in 2015 unless a vote is taken to stop it. “The Illinois General Assembly on May 31 concluded its session without addressing the severe pension liabilities that are the state's greatest credit challenge. Our rating now assumes the government will not take action to reduce the state's pension liabilities any time soon,” said an analysis from Moody’s. “The legislature's political paralysis to date shows not only the magnitude of Illinois' unfunded benefit liabilities but also the legal and political hurdles to legislation that would make pensions more manageable long term. Without significant reforms, substantial growth in both unfunded liabilities and in annual funding burden are likely in coming years. This trend may coincide with the expiration of most of the income tax increases the state imposed in fiscal 2011 to help cover pension costs.”
Moody’s announcement of the rating decrease was especially harsh on Illinois lawmakers. “An A3 rating, while very low for a U.S. state, is consistent with the General Assembly's inability to steer the state from a path to fiscal distress.”
Quinn’s call for special session comes with no indication that leaders have reached a compromise on pension reform. House Speaker Michael Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton fundamentally disagree on how to go about changing the pension systems for public employees. Madigan’s Senate Bill 1 was soundly rejected by the Senate during the last week of session, and the House did not take a vote on Cullerton’s SB 2404 before adjournment. Supporters of Cullerton’s plan say that model, which offers employees a choice in their benefits reduction, is constitutional. They argue that Madigan’s plan, which would unilaterally cut benefits, is not. Backers of SB 1 say Cullerton’s plan would not save enough to stabilize the pension systems, which have an estimated $100 billion unfunded liability. The House also approved a bill to gradually shift future pension costs to universities and community colleges, which the institutions agreed to. But the proposal failed in the Senate on the last day of session.
Republican legislative leaders are generally on board with Quinn’s call for a special session. “Our pension crisis is so severe that Illinois’ credit rating has been downgraded twice in one week,” House Minority Leader Tom Cross said in a prepared statement. “The sooner the Illinois General Assembly returns to Springfield to get the job done on pension reform, the better,” Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno said she “appreciates” the call for session, but she has some reservations. “The governor did call today to tell me his intentions to call a special session. I appreciate the call — but I’m not sure what dynamics have changed in this pension reform discussion. Clearly there is a rift amongst Democrat leaders. Despite their supermajority status, they missed a prime opportunity to enact comprehensive pension reform. We hope that opportunity will still be there now that it will take a supermajority vote in each chamber to pass. Senate Republicans remain willing to work on advancing a pension reform plan that substantially solves the problem.”
When Quinn called a special session on pensions last summer, lawmakers came to the capital for one day, and no compromise pension reform plan materialized. Quinn then vowed to launch a “grassroots” campaign for pensions changes that produced an Internet ad campaign and the much-derided pension reform mascot, Squeezy the pension python.
Democratic legislative leaders had less to say about the announcement. “The Senate president’s office is notifying members of the governor’s request to return to Springfield on June 19th,” said a statement from Senate President John Cullerton’s office. “Moody’s provides more damning evidence that we can’t afford a continual stalemate on pensions. It’s time to identify a reasonable compromise that can pass both chambers with a three-fifths vote.” Madigan spokesman Steve Brown said he has seen nothing that points to a new development on pensions. Madigan did not attend a meeting on pensions held by Quinn earlier this week. “The House will convene,” Brown said. “The House has passed two pretty decent bills: one that has pretty significant [pension] saving and one that ends the free lunch [of the state picking up pension costs for schools].” He said that it would be unlikely that the House would consider legislation that “does anything less” than the bills the chamber has already passed.
Union officials are pushing for Cullerton’s bill. “Moody's rating downgrade makes clear that the House of Representatives must act swiftly to finish the work of sound pension reform the Senate has initiated. Moody's has concerns over ‘legal and political hurdles’ and calls for a ‘credible, comprehensive long-term pension funding plan’ to be implemented. They have laid out the path that should be followed, and it clearly leads to SB 2404. SB 2404 is the only legal, comprehensive, and responsible pension funding solution. It will restore fiscal stability and solvency to the state’s pension systems,” said a statement from the We Are One Coalition.
During the special session, lawmakers may also address concealed carry legislation if Quinn decides to veto House Bill 183, which was approved last week. It is possible the governor would use his veto pen to write in gun control measures that were not passed, such as a high-capacity magazine ban or a ban on assault weapons. Legislators would likely vote to override such a veto. And of course, as happens with many special session, the specters of a host of issues that did not pass during the regular session will likely be raised. Keep an eye out for a renewed push for the legalization of same-sex marriage and a new version of a gaming expansion proposal. However, Quinn could limit the session to a specific topic. Any legislation passed at this point would require a three-fifths majority in both chambers to go into effect before next year.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Quinn looks to lawmakers for construction borrowing
By Jamey Dunn
Gov. Pat Quinn is pushing lawmakers to approve more borrowing for capital construction projects before the legislative session is scheduled to end next month.
Quinn hopes to roll out a $12.62 billion capital construction program over the next six years. “We’ve got to make sure we invest in these important assets that we have. We have major railroads criss-crossing Illinois, major highways, and we also have local roads that are very very important to our commerce and to the people of Illinois to get to school, to shop, to go on vacation. We want to make sure we have a 21st century transportation program,” Quinn said. Projects include revamping the Circle Interchange in Chicago, repairs to I-74 in eastern Illinois and two new bridges over the Mississippi River — one from East St. Louis to St. Louis and one to connect the Illinois Quad Cities with Iowa. The proposal also calls for construction on the Illiana Expressway connecting northern Illinois and northern Indiana. The plan would also make upgrades to mass transit across the state and includes projects to help unsnarl congested freight traffic.
According to IDOT, $9.5 billion would be spent on highways over the next six years. More than 70 percent of that would go toward maintenance work on existing infrastructure “That’s important because our system is aging. We built the system in the late '50s early '60s for the most part. Some of it’s even older than that,” said Anne Schneider, secretary of the Illinois Department of Transportation. Schneider said more than $2 billion would be spent next fiscal year under the plan.
While some of the projects will be administered on a pay-as-you-go basis, Quinn also needs the General Assembly to sign off on some borrowing. For the plan to move forward, legislators must authorize $2.7 billion in bonding. Quinn is looking for lawmakers to approve borrowing for projects associated with the capital plan known as Illinois Jobs Now, which was originally approved in 2009, but he also wants to add new projects. “We need to get the legislature to approve the final segment of our Illinois Jobs Now program that covers our transportation,” Quinn said. It would be the last round of borrowing associated with the capital bill, but Quinn said he would like to see more construction in the future. “I’ve talked to our legislature leaders and I think they understand how important it is that we complete that. But we also, I think, need to have a debate between now and the end of May about more capital, more investment in capital, more opportunity to issue bonds to continue the program. We’d like to have more financing so that we can do this program and more like it.”
But Quinn cautioned that lawmakers should first approve changes to the state’s pension systems to try to address the more than $90 billion unfunded liability. “Pension reform is paramount. This is the issue that we must address and resolve between now and May 31, and we can,” he said. “I think we can get this done and done in a way that resolves it so that we can address ... gaming or more capital in order to build more jobs. Those are things that need to be done as well. But we’ve got to do pensions first.”
Gov. Pat Quinn is pushing lawmakers to approve more borrowing for capital construction projects before the legislative session is scheduled to end next month.
Quinn hopes to roll out a $12.62 billion capital construction program over the next six years. “We’ve got to make sure we invest in these important assets that we have. We have major railroads criss-crossing Illinois, major highways, and we also have local roads that are very very important to our commerce and to the people of Illinois to get to school, to shop, to go on vacation. We want to make sure we have a 21st century transportation program,” Quinn said. Projects include revamping the Circle Interchange in Chicago, repairs to I-74 in eastern Illinois and two new bridges over the Mississippi River — one from East St. Louis to St. Louis and one to connect the Illinois Quad Cities with Iowa. The proposal also calls for construction on the Illiana Expressway connecting northern Illinois and northern Indiana. The plan would also make upgrades to mass transit across the state and includes projects to help unsnarl congested freight traffic.
According to IDOT, $9.5 billion would be spent on highways over the next six years. More than 70 percent of that would go toward maintenance work on existing infrastructure “That’s important because our system is aging. We built the system in the late '50s early '60s for the most part. Some of it’s even older than that,” said Anne Schneider, secretary of the Illinois Department of Transportation. Schneider said more than $2 billion would be spent next fiscal year under the plan.
While some of the projects will be administered on a pay-as-you-go basis, Quinn also needs the General Assembly to sign off on some borrowing. For the plan to move forward, legislators must authorize $2.7 billion in bonding. Quinn is looking for lawmakers to approve borrowing for projects associated with the capital plan known as Illinois Jobs Now, which was originally approved in 2009, but he also wants to add new projects. “We need to get the legislature to approve the final segment of our Illinois Jobs Now program that covers our transportation,” Quinn said. It would be the last round of borrowing associated with the capital bill, but Quinn said he would like to see more construction in the future. “I’ve talked to our legislature leaders and I think they understand how important it is that we complete that. But we also, I think, need to have a debate between now and the end of May about more capital, more investment in capital, more opportunity to issue bonds to continue the program. We’d like to have more financing so that we can do this program and more like it.”
But Quinn cautioned that lawmakers should first approve changes to the state’s pension systems to try to address the more than $90 billion unfunded liability. “Pension reform is paramount. This is the issue that we must address and resolve between now and May 31, and we can,” he said. “I think we can get this done and done in a way that resolves it so that we can address ... gaming or more capital in order to build more jobs. Those are things that need to be done as well. But we’ve got to do pensions first.”
Wednesday, March 06, 2013
Quinn pushes pension changes in somber budget speech
By Jamey Dunn
Gov. Pat Quinn laid out some concepts for changes to the state's underfunded pension systems in a budget that he says is the “most difficult” he has presented to lawmakers. However, the House has already decided that when a final budget is enacted, it will contain less spending than Quinn’s plan.
“This is the most difficult budget that I have ever submitted to you,” Quinn said in his budget address today. “But this is also an honest budget that reflects our fiscal challenges, pays down the backlog of bills and addresses funds that have been under-appropriated for too long, There are no gimmicks or fake numbers in this budget,” He said the difficulty was a product of the legislature’s “inaction on pension reform.”
Pension Changes
Quinn took a stern tone when calling on lawmakers to pass a pension proposal that would change benefits for state workers, teachers outside of Chicago and university and community college employees. “Today, our budget is being squeezed more than ever, and that will continue until we put a stop to it. The most important thing we can do to repair Illinois finances right now is to reform our public pension systems,” Quinn said. “ We all know that we must reform the Illinois public pension systems. So, members of the General Assembly, what are you waiting for?”
Quinn said he was willing to work with lawmakers, but he emphasized that there is only so much he can do. “I stand ready to sign comprehensive pension reform immediately. Today. But I cannot sign what I do not have on my desk. The people of Illinois need your immediate action.”
“I thought he was pretty firm in his tone,” said House Minority Leader Tom Cross. He likened Quinn’s address to a parent giving a lecture. “His tone was fairly strong, and I think he focused on where he need to on the need to reform the pensions system. It is the issue of the day. ... I think he was right in making that the focus of his speech. I agree with him.” Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno said that she “agreed with the governor” that it is “time to vote” on changes to the pension system. However, she said it was unfair of Quinn to lay the blame on lawmakers. “Most of the work that has been done on pensions has come out of the General Assembly, and not out of the governor’s office,” she said.
Union leaders said that creating an impression that the only choices out there are deep education cuts or reductions to retiree benefits is dishonest. “It is unfair for Gov. Quinn to present this false choice between pensions or pencils. Springfield lawmakers created the massive pension debt by skipping payments and borrowing more. To call that debt an education expense is not only a gimmick, but an insult to teachers everywhere. We are not to blame, and our students shouldn't suffer,” Illinois Federation of Teachers President Dan Montgomery said in a prepared statement.
Quinn laid out some concepts that he said should be part of a pension reform plan. He said he wants a funding guarantee that would require the state to make the annual contribution to the pension systems. He also wants money that is currently being used to pay off pension bonds, which were issued to make past payments, to go toward the unfunded liability once the bonds have been paid off. Such a move would direct almost $1 billion annually to the liability once the bonds expire in 2020. He said the plan should include an increased pension contribution from employees, but he did not give a specific figure on the increase. He also called for a freeze on cost of living adjustments for “those with higher pensions.” He called the current 3 percent compounded COLAs “unsustainable for taxpayers.”
Quinn also said lawmakers should “consider additional solutions to break the gridlock.” He said he would support a gaming bill with “tough ethical standards” and a ban on campaign contributions from casino operators. He has vetoed two gaming bills that he said did not have strong enough protections against corruption. Quinn has demanded for some time now that any money from gambling expansion be spent on education, but for the first time, today he brought up the idea of using gaming revenues on pension costs. “Any enhancement that we enact to gaming revenues this year should be dedicated to education, which could include teachers' pensions.”
Senate President John Cullerton said he plans to push members of his chamber to present pension reform proposals. “This reality reinforces why pension reform remains my top priority this session. For that reason. I have notified all pension reform Senate sponsors to present their bills before the Senate Executive Committee within a week,” Cullerton said in a prepared statement. “I am also working to identify new revenue sources for education and priority programs. I believe that a gaming plan that is structured to address the ethical and regulatory concerns of Governor Quinn can be part of a new revenue mix. I look forward to working with each caucus to advance more solutions for our funding shortfall.” A Senate committee approved a gaming bill after Quinn’s speech. According estimates from Senate Democrats, the proposal could bring in $200 million to $400 million in revenue for schools, more than $50 million each year for pension costs and almost more than $300 million in upfront licensing fees that could be spent on overdue bills. The plan calls for a ban on campaign contributions from gaming licensees. The proposal is also a massive expansion that would create five new casinos, allow slot machines at horse racing tracks and airports and create an online gambling system under the Illinois Lottery. Under the so-called i-gaming proposal, residents could bet online. In the past, Quinn has recoiled at large expansions. A spokesperson said that he is “reviewing” the proposal.
Northbrook Democratic Rep. Elaine Nekrtiz, who has been spearheading the pension issue in her chamber, said: “There’s a lot of finger pointing and blame game going on in this whole discussion, and we just need to stop all that and just get about the business of solving it.” She said she thinks that has happened in the House, where she and Cross have presented legislation. She noted that the changes Quinn said he would like to see in the pensions systems are in that plan. “Those are the pieces that are in the Cross-Nekritz bill. By no means are they in every proposal out there. I was very pleased to see that.”
Cuts
Quinn is proposing a $400 million cut to education, which includes K-12 and higher education. Under the proposal, K-12 spending would be cut by more than $275 million. The bulk of the reduction would fall on general state aid to schools, which would be reduced by $150 million. General aid was cut by $161 million under the current state budget. Higher education would take an $83 million hit. In his speech, Quinn did not focus on the details of what the reductions would mean for schools.
Children’s advocates were disappointed with the proposal. “Gov. Quinn’s budget proposal demonstrates that Illinois’ fiscal crisis is far from over and that children, families and communities continue to pay the price for a history of unwise fiscal decisions made by our elected officials. Nearly every area of the budget that impacts children has been subject to deep cuts over the past few years,” Gaylord Gieseke, president of Voices for Illinois Children, said in a prepared statement.
Quinn's plan would not cut early childhood education or Monetary Assistance Program (MAP) grants for low-income college students.
But the cuts may be even deeper in the plan that is ultimately approved by lawmakers because Quinn and the House started their budget planning from two different points. The governor’s budget office estimated the state would have $35.6 billion to spend, but the House yesterday approved a resolution intended to cap spending at $35.08 billion. Quinn’s plan also calls for lawmakers to reassess automatic transfers out of the General Revenue Fund “Our revenue estimates are based on real numbers. ... They’re based on facts. They’re based on evidence. They’re cautious numbers. They take a pragmatic and reasonable approach, and I don’t know where the governor’s numbers come from,” said Marion Democratic Rep. John Bradley, who chairs the committee that produced the House’s estimate.
Quinn’s budget staff said he plans to call on lawmakers to scrutinize money that is automatically transferred out of the General Revenue Fund before the budgeting battle begins. The largest transfer distributes income-tax revenues to local governments. Other transfers are spent on mass transit or are the result of budget deals made in past years. “We haven’t even considered that,” Bradley said. “When you talk about the transfers out, what you’re really talking about is the local government distributive fund. Fifty percent of the transfers out go to local governments, and the other [large] percentage of that goes to mass transit, both upstate and downstate. So that’s going to be a fight between him and the city of Chicago, and Cook County and all the local municipalities throughout the state.”
The idea has been floated in the past by Senate Democrats, and some support it again this year. “Nobody wants to see a $400 million reduction in education. ... We can’t let that happen,” said Park Ridge Democratic Sen. Dan Kotowski, who chairs a Senate budgeting committee. “People come to our state for a number of reasons, not just because we have good roads, because we have great schools. No business in their right mind will want to come to the state of Illinois if we don’t fund education at the level it should be funded. If we were to tell people out there in the general public that there’s $1 billion that’s out there that’s automatically spent, and it's not reviewed, and it doesn’t face the same kind of scrutiny as education, health care, human services and public safety, people would say, ‘That’s crazy.’ Well it is. And it needs to be fixed. It’s wrong. It’s broken.”
Gov. Pat Quinn laid out some concepts for changes to the state's underfunded pension systems in a budget that he says is the “most difficult” he has presented to lawmakers. However, the House has already decided that when a final budget is enacted, it will contain less spending than Quinn’s plan.
“This is the most difficult budget that I have ever submitted to you,” Quinn said in his budget address today. “But this is also an honest budget that reflects our fiscal challenges, pays down the backlog of bills and addresses funds that have been under-appropriated for too long, There are no gimmicks or fake numbers in this budget,” He said the difficulty was a product of the legislature’s “inaction on pension reform.”
Pension Changes
Quinn took a stern tone when calling on lawmakers to pass a pension proposal that would change benefits for state workers, teachers outside of Chicago and university and community college employees. “Today, our budget is being squeezed more than ever, and that will continue until we put a stop to it. The most important thing we can do to repair Illinois finances right now is to reform our public pension systems,” Quinn said. “ We all know that we must reform the Illinois public pension systems. So, members of the General Assembly, what are you waiting for?”
Quinn said he was willing to work with lawmakers, but he emphasized that there is only so much he can do. “I stand ready to sign comprehensive pension reform immediately. Today. But I cannot sign what I do not have on my desk. The people of Illinois need your immediate action.”
“I thought he was pretty firm in his tone,” said House Minority Leader Tom Cross. He likened Quinn’s address to a parent giving a lecture. “His tone was fairly strong, and I think he focused on where he need to on the need to reform the pensions system. It is the issue of the day. ... I think he was right in making that the focus of his speech. I agree with him.” Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno said that she “agreed with the governor” that it is “time to vote” on changes to the pension system. However, she said it was unfair of Quinn to lay the blame on lawmakers. “Most of the work that has been done on pensions has come out of the General Assembly, and not out of the governor’s office,” she said.
Union leaders said that creating an impression that the only choices out there are deep education cuts or reductions to retiree benefits is dishonest. “It is unfair for Gov. Quinn to present this false choice between pensions or pencils. Springfield lawmakers created the massive pension debt by skipping payments and borrowing more. To call that debt an education expense is not only a gimmick, but an insult to teachers everywhere. We are not to blame, and our students shouldn't suffer,” Illinois Federation of Teachers President Dan Montgomery said in a prepared statement.
Quinn laid out some concepts that he said should be part of a pension reform plan. He said he wants a funding guarantee that would require the state to make the annual contribution to the pension systems. He also wants money that is currently being used to pay off pension bonds, which were issued to make past payments, to go toward the unfunded liability once the bonds have been paid off. Such a move would direct almost $1 billion annually to the liability once the bonds expire in 2020. He said the plan should include an increased pension contribution from employees, but he did not give a specific figure on the increase. He also called for a freeze on cost of living adjustments for “those with higher pensions.” He called the current 3 percent compounded COLAs “unsustainable for taxpayers.”
Quinn also said lawmakers should “consider additional solutions to break the gridlock.” He said he would support a gaming bill with “tough ethical standards” and a ban on campaign contributions from casino operators. He has vetoed two gaming bills that he said did not have strong enough protections against corruption. Quinn has demanded for some time now that any money from gambling expansion be spent on education, but for the first time, today he brought up the idea of using gaming revenues on pension costs. “Any enhancement that we enact to gaming revenues this year should be dedicated to education, which could include teachers' pensions.”
Senate President John Cullerton said he plans to push members of his chamber to present pension reform proposals. “This reality reinforces why pension reform remains my top priority this session. For that reason. I have notified all pension reform Senate sponsors to present their bills before the Senate Executive Committee within a week,” Cullerton said in a prepared statement. “I am also working to identify new revenue sources for education and priority programs. I believe that a gaming plan that is structured to address the ethical and regulatory concerns of Governor Quinn can be part of a new revenue mix. I look forward to working with each caucus to advance more solutions for our funding shortfall.” A Senate committee approved a gaming bill after Quinn’s speech. According estimates from Senate Democrats, the proposal could bring in $200 million to $400 million in revenue for schools, more than $50 million each year for pension costs and almost more than $300 million in upfront licensing fees that could be spent on overdue bills. The plan calls for a ban on campaign contributions from gaming licensees. The proposal is also a massive expansion that would create five new casinos, allow slot machines at horse racing tracks and airports and create an online gambling system under the Illinois Lottery. Under the so-called i-gaming proposal, residents could bet online. In the past, Quinn has recoiled at large expansions. A spokesperson said that he is “reviewing” the proposal.
Northbrook Democratic Rep. Elaine Nekrtiz, who has been spearheading the pension issue in her chamber, said: “There’s a lot of finger pointing and blame game going on in this whole discussion, and we just need to stop all that and just get about the business of solving it.” She said she thinks that has happened in the House, where she and Cross have presented legislation. She noted that the changes Quinn said he would like to see in the pensions systems are in that plan. “Those are the pieces that are in the Cross-Nekritz bill. By no means are they in every proposal out there. I was very pleased to see that.”
Cuts
Quinn is proposing a $400 million cut to education, which includes K-12 and higher education. Under the proposal, K-12 spending would be cut by more than $275 million. The bulk of the reduction would fall on general state aid to schools, which would be reduced by $150 million. General aid was cut by $161 million under the current state budget. Higher education would take an $83 million hit. In his speech, Quinn did not focus on the details of what the reductions would mean for schools.
Children’s advocates were disappointed with the proposal. “Gov. Quinn’s budget proposal demonstrates that Illinois’ fiscal crisis is far from over and that children, families and communities continue to pay the price for a history of unwise fiscal decisions made by our elected officials. Nearly every area of the budget that impacts children has been subject to deep cuts over the past few years,” Gaylord Gieseke, president of Voices for Illinois Children, said in a prepared statement.
Quinn's plan would not cut early childhood education or Monetary Assistance Program (MAP) grants for low-income college students.
But the cuts may be even deeper in the plan that is ultimately approved by lawmakers because Quinn and the House started their budget planning from two different points. The governor’s budget office estimated the state would have $35.6 billion to spend, but the House yesterday approved a resolution intended to cap spending at $35.08 billion. Quinn’s plan also calls for lawmakers to reassess automatic transfers out of the General Revenue Fund “Our revenue estimates are based on real numbers. ... They’re based on facts. They’re based on evidence. They’re cautious numbers. They take a pragmatic and reasonable approach, and I don’t know where the governor’s numbers come from,” said Marion Democratic Rep. John Bradley, who chairs the committee that produced the House’s estimate.
Quinn’s budget staff said he plans to call on lawmakers to scrutinize money that is automatically transferred out of the General Revenue Fund before the budgeting battle begins. The largest transfer distributes income-tax revenues to local governments. Other transfers are spent on mass transit or are the result of budget deals made in past years. “We haven’t even considered that,” Bradley said. “When you talk about the transfers out, what you’re really talking about is the local government distributive fund. Fifty percent of the transfers out go to local governments, and the other [large] percentage of that goes to mass transit, both upstate and downstate. So that’s going to be a fight between him and the city of Chicago, and Cook County and all the local municipalities throughout the state.”
The idea has been floated in the past by Senate Democrats, and some support it again this year. “Nobody wants to see a $400 million reduction in education. ... We can’t let that happen,” said Park Ridge Democratic Sen. Dan Kotowski, who chairs a Senate budgeting committee. “People come to our state for a number of reasons, not just because we have good roads, because we have great schools. No business in their right mind will want to come to the state of Illinois if we don’t fund education at the level it should be funded. If we were to tell people out there in the general public that there’s $1 billion that’s out there that’s automatically spent, and it's not reviewed, and it doesn’t face the same kind of scrutiny as education, health care, human services and public safety, people would say, ‘That’s crazy.’ Well it is. And it needs to be fixed. It’s wrong. It’s broken.”
Tuesday, March 05, 2013
Quinn to propose education cuts and pension changes
By Jamey Dunn with Meredith Colias contributing
In his budget proposal tomorrow, Gov. Pat Quinn is expected to lay out substantial cuts to education and press lawmakers for changes to public employee pensions.
“This is a difficult budget. It holds the line on spending and reflects the state’s fiscal challenges. This budget doesn’t propose any new taxes fees or programs. It’s an honest budget that’s based on actual costs, and continues to eliminate gimmicks. This budget is a direct result of the inaction on stabilizing the pensions,” Jack Lavin, Quinn’s chief of staff, said at a briefing for reporters this evening. Quinn plans to propose a nearly $400 million cut education. CORRECTION: Quinn's budget staff gave this figure as a cut to K-12. They later revised that statement to cover all education, including higher ed.) General State Aid to schools would be reduced by $150 million. Quinn also plans to call for cuts to transportation funding. Funding for higher education would be reduced by almost 5 percent. Early childhood education and Monetary Awards Program (MAP) grants for low-income college students would be safe from cuts. “Here we have a series of reductions that the governor does not want to do. These are outside of his vision of where we ought to be as a society. These reductions are a direct result of no action on pension reform,” said Jerry Stermer, director of Quinn’s budget office.
Quinn’s general revenue estimate of $35.6 billion comes in higher than the $35.08 billion that the House approved today. The House's number is based on analysis from the bipartisan legislative Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability. Quinn's budget calls for a total of $62.4 billion, including federal revenue and spending from other funds, but the bulk of the appropriation process focuses on general revenue. Quinn’s budget is predicated on the idea that lawmakers would get on board with taking some money that is typically automatically transferred out of the General Revenue Fund (GRF) before the budget battle each year and instead toss it into the appropriations process. Quinn’s representatives at a budget briefing this evening said he does not intend to make specific suggestions about which transfers to tap into but will instead call upon lawmakers to assess all of the transfers out on an annual basis. “It is an autopilot kind of an appropriation. It just goes by itself without an annual review by the General Assembly. … It just goes out the door,” Stermer said. “All of those dollars in FY 13 are on autopilot, according to existing statutes. The only way you can make a change is to change the statute.”
The largest transfer, more than $1 billion, is of income tax revenues that are funneled to local governments based on their populations. In 2011, Quinn proposed delaying payments to local governments as part of a plan to cut some of the backlog of unpaid bills. That plan was met with vocal opposition and lobbying from local mayors and was quickly dropped. A budget plan that Senate Republicans proposed that same year called for a $300 million cut to revenues shared with local governments.
Stermer said one fund at the Department of Revenue has a surplus that will be automatically dumped into the GRF at the start of the next fiscal year. “So that’s $150 million that COGFA did not account for.”
The budget calls for reducing the backlog by $2 billion over the current fiscal year and Fiscal Year 2014. The governor’s budget projection estimates the backlog, which is now more than $8 billion, will be $6.8 billion by the end of FY 14.
Quinn spokeswoman Brooke Anderson said the governor does not plan to propose billions in borrowing to pay down the backlog, an idea he has advocated in the past. However, she said, “He will propose a way to pay down the bills faster,” although she declined to share details. “We’ll leave that” for tomorrow’s budget address, she said.
In his budget proposal tomorrow, Gov. Pat Quinn is expected to lay out substantial cuts to education and press lawmakers for changes to public employee pensions.
“This is a difficult budget. It holds the line on spending and reflects the state’s fiscal challenges. This budget doesn’t propose any new taxes fees or programs. It’s an honest budget that’s based on actual costs, and continues to eliminate gimmicks. This budget is a direct result of the inaction on stabilizing the pensions,” Jack Lavin, Quinn’s chief of staff, said at a briefing for reporters this evening. Quinn plans to propose a nearly $400 million cut education. CORRECTION: Quinn's budget staff gave this figure as a cut to K-12. They later revised that statement to cover all education, including higher ed.) General State Aid to schools would be reduced by $150 million. Quinn also plans to call for cuts to transportation funding. Funding for higher education would be reduced by almost 5 percent. Early childhood education and Monetary Awards Program (MAP) grants for low-income college students would be safe from cuts. “Here we have a series of reductions that the governor does not want to do. These are outside of his vision of where we ought to be as a society. These reductions are a direct result of no action on pension reform,” said Jerry Stermer, director of Quinn’s budget office.
Quinn’s general revenue estimate of $35.6 billion comes in higher than the $35.08 billion that the House approved today. The House's number is based on analysis from the bipartisan legislative Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability. Quinn's budget calls for a total of $62.4 billion, including federal revenue and spending from other funds, but the bulk of the appropriation process focuses on general revenue. Quinn’s budget is predicated on the idea that lawmakers would get on board with taking some money that is typically automatically transferred out of the General Revenue Fund (GRF) before the budget battle each year and instead toss it into the appropriations process. Quinn’s representatives at a budget briefing this evening said he does not intend to make specific suggestions about which transfers to tap into but will instead call upon lawmakers to assess all of the transfers out on an annual basis. “It is an autopilot kind of an appropriation. It just goes by itself without an annual review by the General Assembly. … It just goes out the door,” Stermer said. “All of those dollars in FY 13 are on autopilot, according to existing statutes. The only way you can make a change is to change the statute.”
The largest transfer, more than $1 billion, is of income tax revenues that are funneled to local governments based on their populations. In 2011, Quinn proposed delaying payments to local governments as part of a plan to cut some of the backlog of unpaid bills. That plan was met with vocal opposition and lobbying from local mayors and was quickly dropped. A budget plan that Senate Republicans proposed that same year called for a $300 million cut to revenues shared with local governments.
Stermer said one fund at the Department of Revenue has a surplus that will be automatically dumped into the GRF at the start of the next fiscal year. “So that’s $150 million that COGFA did not account for.”
The budget calls for reducing the backlog by $2 billion over the current fiscal year and Fiscal Year 2014. The governor’s budget projection estimates the backlog, which is now more than $8 billion, will be $6.8 billion by the end of FY 14.
Quinn spokeswoman Brooke Anderson said the governor does not plan to propose billions in borrowing to pay down the backlog, an idea he has advocated in the past. However, she said, “He will propose a way to pay down the bills faster,” although she declined to share details. “We’ll leave that” for tomorrow’s budget address, she said.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Quinn: There is no money for pay raises
By Jamey Dunn
Gov. Pat Quinn said today that Illinois does not have the money to give public workers raises under the contract their union is currently negotiating with the state.
“We’ve already told the union in the negotiations that there’s no money for raises,” Quinn said. He said he supports a House resolution that would urge lawmakers not to approve money for raises in the fiscal year 2013 budget. “It’s just common sense. The piggy bank is not there to be giving out raises. We have many bills to pay. We have this pension challenge, and so the notion that we would be giving out raises is not in the cards. And so it’s better for everybody, the executive branch and the legislative branch, to let the government employee union know what the facts are.”
“HJR 45 unnecessarily limits the rights of workers and undermines the state employee collective bargaining process that has worked without disruption in Illinois for 40 years,” Anders Lindall, spokesman for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31, said in a written statement. “This resolution and continued false statements by the governor and his administration wrongly blame hard-working public servants for the state’s budget problems. Men and women who care for veterans and the disabled, protect children from abuse and keep our communities safe have earned middle-class wages, and Pat Quinn’s actions to terminate their union contract while trying to drive down their standard of living is an attack on the middle class.”
Lindall said the union has offered in negotiations with Quinn to forgo raises next year as part of a “comprehensive settlement.”
“We’re negotiating now,” Quinn said of the new contract. “I really hope we can come to a fair deal for everybody,” Quinn opted last week not to extend the union’s previous contract, which expired in June. However, workers are staying on the job without a contract, and the terms of the expired contract remain in place under state law.
Quinn also defended Squeezy the Pension Python, a character in an online video produced by the governor’s office to inform the public on growing pension costs. The cartoon snake has been mocked by some political commentators. Quinn said the character is a “creative” way to explain the issue to the average Facebook or Twitter user. “In the world of social media, you’re trying to connect to folks who maybe aren’t all that political. That’s maybe 98 percent of the people. They don’t live and breathe politics every day, and we’ve got to get beyond the sphere of just people on the inside. The issue of the pension reform really affects everybody, the amount of money we spend on our schools and our public safety and helping veterans, all of that is getting squeezed by this pension challenge.”
Lindall said that video inaccurately characterizes the issue. “The governor’s pension website is misleading to the public. Rather than pretending that the pension debt is the cause, when in fact, it’s a symptom of the state’s unfair tax structure — and instead of comparing retirees to snakes — a worthwhile education effort would explain what’s truly needed: a guarantee that politicians won’t skip pension payments going forward; and adequate revenue to maintain vital services while the state pays the pension debt.”
Quinn today declined to comment on a plan under consideration in the House to borrow $4 billion. The measure, House Bill 6240, is sponsored by Chicago Democratic Rep. Esther Golar. “I haven’t seen that bill. I have to look at it,” Quinn said. In the past, he has pushed the idea of borrowing billions to pay off some of the state's overdue bills.
Gov. Pat Quinn said today that Illinois does not have the money to give public workers raises under the contract their union is currently negotiating with the state.
“We’ve already told the union in the negotiations that there’s no money for raises,” Quinn said. He said he supports a House resolution that would urge lawmakers not to approve money for raises in the fiscal year 2013 budget. “It’s just common sense. The piggy bank is not there to be giving out raises. We have many bills to pay. We have this pension challenge, and so the notion that we would be giving out raises is not in the cards. And so it’s better for everybody, the executive branch and the legislative branch, to let the government employee union know what the facts are.”
“HJR 45 unnecessarily limits the rights of workers and undermines the state employee collective bargaining process that has worked without disruption in Illinois for 40 years,” Anders Lindall, spokesman for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31, said in a written statement. “This resolution and continued false statements by the governor and his administration wrongly blame hard-working public servants for the state’s budget problems. Men and women who care for veterans and the disabled, protect children from abuse and keep our communities safe have earned middle-class wages, and Pat Quinn’s actions to terminate their union contract while trying to drive down their standard of living is an attack on the middle class.”
Lindall said the union has offered in negotiations with Quinn to forgo raises next year as part of a “comprehensive settlement.”
“We’re negotiating now,” Quinn said of the new contract. “I really hope we can come to a fair deal for everybody,” Quinn opted last week not to extend the union’s previous contract, which expired in June. However, workers are staying on the job without a contract, and the terms of the expired contract remain in place under state law.
Quinn also defended Squeezy the Pension Python, a character in an online video produced by the governor’s office to inform the public on growing pension costs. The cartoon snake has been mocked by some political commentators. Quinn said the character is a “creative” way to explain the issue to the average Facebook or Twitter user. “In the world of social media, you’re trying to connect to folks who maybe aren’t all that political. That’s maybe 98 percent of the people. They don’t live and breathe politics every day, and we’ve got to get beyond the sphere of just people on the inside. The issue of the pension reform really affects everybody, the amount of money we spend on our schools and our public safety and helping veterans, all of that is getting squeezed by this pension challenge.”
Lindall said that video inaccurately characterizes the issue. “The governor’s pension website is misleading to the public. Rather than pretending that the pension debt is the cause, when in fact, it’s a symptom of the state’s unfair tax structure — and instead of comparing retirees to snakes — a worthwhile education effort would explain what’s truly needed: a guarantee that politicians won’t skip pension payments going forward; and adequate revenue to maintain vital services while the state pays the pension debt.”
Quinn today declined to comment on a plan under consideration in the House to borrow $4 billion. The measure, House Bill 6240, is sponsored by Chicago Democratic Rep. Esther Golar. “I haven’t seen that bill. I have to look at it,” Quinn said. In the past, he has pushed the idea of borrowing billions to pay off some of the state's overdue bills.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
